Updated: Added statement for 20 March.
This page sets out the Business Statements by the Leader of the House of Commons for February 2014.
The Business Statement takes place every Thursday morning when the House is sitting, usually at 11.30 am. Statements are available here shortly after being announced to the House.
Updated: Added 'Fair Chance Fund: questions and answers'.
The Fair Chance Fund is a payment by results programme of up to £15 million that aims to improve outcomes for a group of young, homeless people (predominantly 18 to 24 year olds) whose needs are difficult to address using existing services but, if not addressed, are likely to lead to long-term benefit dependency, health problems and increased crime.
We are now inviting expressions of interest from service providers for the Fair Chance Fund. Bids should be submitted on the application form here by 12pm on 22 April 2014. The application form should be completed with reference to the expressions of interest phase specification.
Updated: Updated guidance throughout, including combining former Digital Service Delivery section with ICT section.
Together with long term structural reform programmes, the Cabinet Office controls are a core component of the work to reduce wasteful expenditure and help reduce the fiscal deficit. The controls are a cross-government policy for whose implementation Cabinet Office is responsible. This guidance will help departments and their arms’ length bodies (ALBs) to understand:
View the full list of strategic suppliers.
The Government Digital Strategy commits each government department to carrying out 16 actions.
Action 11 is that Cabinet Office will lead in the definition and delivery of a new suite of common technology platforms which will underpin the new generation of digital services. This document outlines how each department is doing this.
The Government Digital Strategy commits each government department to carrying out 16 actions.
Action 13 is that departments will supply a consistent set of management information (as defined by Cabinet Office) for their transactional services. This document outlines how each department is doing this.
The Government Digital Strategy commits each government department to carrying out 16 actions.
Action 14 is that policy teams will use digital tools and techniques to engage with and consult the public.
The Government Digital Strategy commits each government department to carrying out 16 actions.
Action 9 is that there will be a cross-government approach to assisted digital. This means that people who have rarely or never been online will be able to access services offline, and we will provide additional ways for them to use the digital services.
The Government Digital Strategy commits each government department to carrying out 16 actions.
Action 15 is ‘Collaborate with partners across public, private and voluntary sectors to help people go online’.
10 pioneering local authorities have been chosen to receive support from the Delivering Differently Challenge. More than 150 local authorities across England applied for the support. The successful applicants demonstrated innovative approaches and showed that they were committed to trying new models of delivering services, eg:
The 10 local authorities are:
Walsall Adult and Community College (WACC) is one of the organisations that will benefit. WACC was the first organisation to be judged Outstanding by OFSTED under the new, more rigorous, inspection framework introduced in 2012. They have turned to Delivering Differently to help them diversify and expand their services by developing a new model that provides the flexibility and growth found in the wider education and training sectors.
Another is Dover District Council – the first local authority in the country to develop a Heritage Strategy. Dover wants to transform the delivery of its museum and tourism service to get maximum value for money, enhance currently untapped sites such as the Napoleonic Western Heights and promote the district as one of the UK’s tourist hotspots. It is the first time that a heritage service has considered transforming the way its services are delivered, and future options include creating a heritage co-operative, mutual or trust, to bring together heritage assets managed by a range of providers.
Paul Watkins, Leader of Dover District Council, said:
We are delighted to be one of the 10 successful projects selected for the Delivering Differently Challenge. Dover boasts some of the country’s most important heritage assets, and this project will unlock their potential to contribute to economic growth and regeneration, whilst also providing a more sustainable future for these assets.
The Delivering Differently Challenge is a joint programme between the Cabinet Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). The programme provides £1 million worth of professional support to help 10 local authorities develop and put in place new models for delivering their chosen service areas.
Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude said:
The entire public sector needs to do more with less while providing services that work better for local people, and I’m pleased that we can support 10 pioneering councils from across the country who want to take control of their services and leave state bureaucracy behind.
Updated: Added news story announcing 10 successful recipients of Delivering Differently funding.
Delivering Differently is helping local authorities to transform their services through the use of new delivery models such as mutuals and voluntary organisations.
Delivering Differently is a joint programme between the Cabinet Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).
If you have any questions about Delivering Differently, please contact deliveringdifferently@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk.
It’s a great privilege and a pleasure to be invited to deliver this lecture today and to be a guest of the Employee Ownership Association and really a genuine honour to deliver the 2014 Robert Oakeshott Memorial Lecture.
It’s great to see representatives from John Lewis, Arup, Gripple, and some of the other amazing private sector success stories here today.
It’s also a pleasure to be at the ICAEW, itself a mutual albeit a membership mutual rather than a staff one. But a great deal of symmetry.
Robert Oakeshott lived through one of the most polarised eras in political history, yet his own place in that order was never a fixed one. His party political affiliations were broadly with the centre-left but he wrote widely, and his writings found expression across the pages of the Spectator, the Economist and the Financial Times.
Independent-minded, he was a man of very strong beliefs. Today his name has become synonymous with this cause above all others – the cause of employee ownership.
Historically, employee ownership has never really had a fixed ideological abode: it was often shunned by the left because of their dogmatic commitment to state ownership; down-played by the right in favour of what some saw as classic red-blooded capitalism.
I was remembering just last week when reading Tony Benn’s obituaries how in the 1970s he tried to save three companies by turning them into workers’ cooperatives, notably the Triumph motorcycle works at Meriden. It was an experiment really in syndicalist industrial reorganisation; and the failure of those ventures I think set back the cause of employee ownership and cooperatives by some years.
So how does all of this bear on the reform of public services? In 2010 when the coalition government was formed we faced a public service crisis. We faced the biggest budget deficit in the developed world; we faced rising public expectations relating to the quality of services; and we faced a stagnant economy.
Between 1997 and 2010, according to the Office for National Statistics, productivity in the public sector flat-lined. Yet in the private services sector – the nearest equivalent - over the same period productivity rose by nearly 30%. Even a back of the envelope analysis suggests that if productivity had risen by the same amount in the public sector, the annual deficit could have been at least a quarter smaller – probably much more - a cut of around £50 billion; or the economy larger by a minimum of £2,000 for every household. However you calculate it, the absolutely inescapable conclusion is that our economic and fiscal position would have been radically different.
So how do we drive up productivity in the public sector? There have been plenty over the years who didn’t believe you could. As a Treasury Minister in the early 1990s, I was charged with developing the Citizen’s Charter, an early programme concerned with the systematic improvement of public services. I faced what felt like a tacit conspiracy of defeatism. The Treasury struggled with the idea that services could be improved without departments constantly demanding more money. And departments themselves, faced with demands for better quality, entirely predictably confirmed the Treasury’s gloomy prognosis by – yes – demanding more money.
Absent from both sides was any recognition that productivity could be improved; that more could be achieved for the same amount; that the same could be achieved for less money; least of all the proposition that we are now amply proving on a monthly basis: that you can deliver more for less. This was the defeatist consensus that has held back public services for too long.
That approach reached its nadir in the last decade. The NHS budget more than doubled, but productivity if anything deteriorated. The apparent age of plenty seemed to have relieved the public sector of the need to be creative. And then suddenly one morning there was no money. As sir Ernest Rutherford famously is alleged to have said: “We’ve run out of money. Now we must think”.
Our thinking led us to propose public service reform which has followed 5 principles.
For too long, delivery of public services has been shackled by a top-down, Whitehall-knows-best attitude. Public sector workers were left feeling alienated: dispossessed from effective control over their ability to shape the services they had responsibility for delivering.
Too often there seemed to be a binary choice: either the public sector as a bureaucratic in-house monopoly provider; or on the other hand, full-blown red-blooded commercial privatisation or outsourcing.
Happily, that’s changed and there are now alternatives. Social enterprises. Joint ventures. Voluntary and charitable organisations. And, of course, public service mutuals.
And it’s this last – public service mutuals – that is the fastest growing alternative, which is arousing most interest among governments abroad and which will I believe will increasingly be the way of the future.
Why? Because creating a mutual releases creative energy and entrepreneurialism. And that’s the problem many critics have with this programme. They either don’t believe entrepreneurs exist in the public sector. That it’s solely the domain of stuffy bureaucrats. Or they don’t think entrepreneurialism should be allowed to mix with the public service ethos, lest it contaminates the purity of this ethos. Both I believe are wrong. There are loads of latent entrepreneurs in the public sector. They may not think of themselves as entrepreneurs, but they have all of that spirit of enterprise, the willingness to back their ideas, and invest their energy and creativity to make things happen.
It doesn’t mean they all want to be Branson-type millionaires and billionaires. In most spinouts the staff themselves have chosen that the entity should be a not-for-profit company or organisation. They didn’t need to make that choice – they would have had the opportunity to make it a for-profit organisation - but for the most part that’s the choice they made.
Yes you can get improved productivity through conventional outsourcing. That will often be the right option to take. But rarely in my experience does it deliver the almost overnight improvement that mutualisation can stimulate.
The last government started down the path of mutualisation. But their approach was in my view and that of others, too top-down, too prescriptive and bureaucratic; and resulted in no more than a handful of new mutuals.
I decided against this approach. And I want to do something at this stage that ministers too rarely do which is to pay a tribute to the civil servants who worked with me on this programme during this period led by Rannia Leontaridi. This is a team of officials who have been creative, dedicated, incredibly hard working, incredibly effective in making things happen. So I’d like to say a very big thank you to you Rannia and all of your team who have supported me during this programme. So we decided against the top-down approach. So there was no White Paper; no all-encompassing strategy; no big bang media launch. It was what I know think of as the JFDI school of government – the just do it school of government. We didn’t start with the theory and move on to the practice. We did it the other way round. We decided we’d find a hundred flowers and build a hothouse around them so they can bloom and grow.
So the first thing was to identify groups of workers who wanted to spin out from the public sector. As Pathfinders, we gave intensive support to these organisations, who in return shared their experiences with us and with others. Many of these Pathfinders are now among the country’s best performing mutuals.
Next, we made £10 million available through our Mutual Support Programme. It’s not a lot of money - I know that. But we’ve made it go a really long way. The funding isn’t allocated directly. Instead it’s used to build the capability of these new businesses - as that’s what they are - through professional expertise and advice. That’s the way the government can negotiate the best deal and, over time, we’ve built up a valuable set of tools and templates which upcoming spinouts can access and draw upon for free.
And there’s no “one size fits all” approach, no one size fits all format. Some mutuals are conventional companies; some are companies limited by guarantee; some are community interest companies; some choose to be charities. Some have 100% employee ownership; but to qualify there must be no less than 25% employee ownership so that staff can exercise at least negative control over the entity. So there’s a whole spectrum of different models available, and each group must select the right course for their particular horse. Each spinout is a journey for and by its own staff. They’re the ones in the driving seat, leading the change.
And our approach is working.
4 years after the last general election, the number of mutuals has increased tenfold to nearly 100. Between them they employ over 35,000 people, delivering around £1.5 billion worth of services. They’re in sectors ranging from libraries and elderly social care to mental health services and school support. They range in size from a handful of staff to upwards of 2000 staff.
Neither is this confined to any one region – it’s certainly not a London niche – it’s a national success story. The map of mutuals shows them spread across Britain. The results are spectacular. Waste and costs down. Staff satisfaction up. Absenteeism - a key test or morale and productivity – is falling and falling sharply. Business growing.
Staff engagement surveys bear out the simple truth that service improves and productivity rises when the staff have a stake; when they feel they belong; and that their individual voice and actions count.
Our latest data shows that after an organisation spins out as a mutual absenteeism falls by 20%; staff turnover falls by 16%. Take City Healthcare Partnership based in Hull as an example. 91% of staff said they now feel trusted to do their jobs – and this level of empowerment has had a knock-on effect in the quality of care they give. Since they left the NHS in 2010, there has been a 14% increase in patients who’ve rated their care and support as excellent, and 92% say they would recommend the service to family and friends.
No wonder City Healthcare came 46th in the Times 2014 Top 100 Not for Profit Companies to work for.
At SEQOL in Swindon, a groundbreaking mutual formed by integrating in one entity intermediate healthcare activities from the PCT with some social care activity from the council, staff proudly showed me the stockroom, where a nurse had painstakingly attached stickers with the unit price of each item. “Why did you do that?” I asked the nurse showing me round. “To make us more aware of the cost so we could save money”, was the response. “But why?” I persisted. “You’re a not for profit organisation and none of you will benefit financially from the savings you make”. “No. But every pound we save makes us more competitive. And it’s a pound we can put straight back into better patient care”.
And that’s the point. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with better financial reward for public servants. But it’s not the biggest driver of better productivity. It’s the satisfaction people get from putting their ideas into action, and seeing swift results. It’s the sense of pride that it’s their organisation that is delivering the service. That they can make improvements quickly, taking responsibility for making things happen, without new ideas getting bogged down in bureaucratic treacle. Just looking at the Baxendale Awards for Employee Owned Businesses this year, you can see the spinouts dominating the innovation category. So in a mutual, public servants can give effect to their public service ethos with immediate and gratifying speed.
Whenever I visit a mutual – which I do a lot, it’s a drug, it’s addictive - I always ask the same question of staff: “Would you go back to work for the council/health authority/ministry?”
The answer is always “No”. “Why not?” “Because in a mutual we can do things”.
That’s the essence of it. People can see how things can be done better and do it. They can give effect and take responsibility and pride for making things happen. People typically say they are working harder than they were but they are enjoying it more, it’s more rewarding, more fulfilling. That’s why I think the public service mutual is the way of the future.
Of course, the public service ethos remains front and centre. But it doesn’t have to be at the expense of strong commercial instinct.
Spinouts are winning new business – and winning new business fast. A study from Boston Consulting Group projects an average increase in revenues of 10% this year.
MyCSP, which is responsible for administering the Civil Service Pension Scheme, was the first mutual joint venture to spin out from central government. Under its contract the cost of the service to the taxpayer will halve over eight years. The private sector partner has taken on the transformation and IT costs that would otherwise have fallen to the Exchequer. Under its innovative equity structure, the Government retains a 35% stake. The staff, with a 25% stake, all received a first year dividend of nearly £700. And in its first year of operation it gained 47 new clients. This is a growth business.
Social AdVentures in Salford saw a growth in revenues last year of no less than 262%.
3BM in London increased their business by over 25% in their first year as a mutual.
Since spinning out in July 2011 - in the middle of the economic downturn - Allied Health Professionals in Suffolk has increased its number of staff from 63 to around 100; its turnover from just over £2 million to £3 million – all on the back of winning new contracts.
And in Norfolk, East Coast Community Healthcare’s first year profit was 40% ahead of plans.
The point is that each of these new mutuals represents a new and dynamic enterprise in the market economy. They are all incentivised one way or another to improve and grow. They all strengthen the market for their services and they make the market deeper, wider and more competitive. And as we have seen all too clearly in the last year, public service commissioners had become too dependent in too many areas on too limited a range of suppliers. Every new mutual helps to remedy that deficiency to improve the depth and dynamism of the market.
So - cutting costs; improving quality; supporting economic growth and jobs: what’s not to like about all that?
I had a really interesting experience recently when successfully negotiating in the European Parliament some much needed changes to EU public procurement rules. We wanted to have a provision that would shield future new public service mutuals from the immediate full panoply of EU regulations while they established themselves as businesses. We had brilliant support from British Conservative and Liberal MEPs. But beyond them? Well, the Socialists thought that it was promoting privatisation by the back door. And some on the centre-right thought it was a scandalous erosion of the pure milk of the competitive free market.
Well let’s examine both contentions. Is mutualisation equivalent to privatisation? Technically yes. Mutuals are spinouts from the public sector into the private or social sectors so they get classified as non-public sector. It’s certainly not privatisation by the back door though. It’s as open a process as you could want.
On the other hand does mutualisation by negotiation frustrate competition? Well actually not at all. It promotes it. It opens it up a broader hybrid economy with a wider range of suppliers – there’s a place for mutual spinouts, joint ventures and charities and voluntary organisations, alongside private companies and the public sector. So it’s just worth asking ourselves why is such a small proportion of public service delivered by suppliers outside the public sector? Because I think part of it is conventional outsourcing and privatisation is fraught with political and industrial relations risk. It can look ideological and dogmatic, and can arouse the hostility of the staff. It makes managers anxious because of the fear that the contract will be overpriced leading to excess profits and uncomfortable hearings at the Public Accounts Committee.
But mutualisation can square all these circles. If it is driven by the staff and is a not-for-profit then where’s the problem? And if it’s for profit then why not keep a stake for the state? Then the taxpayer benefits along with the staff and managers. And often the alternative to a mutual joint venture is a straight outsourcing. And I don’t come across many public servants who, if their operation is going to move out of the public sector, wouldn’t prefer themselves to have a stake and some control over the new entity.
So for the staff it can feel like a lower risk alternative to straight privatisation and for managers a way of harvesting productivity gains without the downside of immediate competition. Because in nearly all situations, a negotiated spinout into a mutual or mutual joint venture must be followed after a few years by an unfettered competition, where the mutual will have the advantage of a track record and incumbent advantage but will staff to go up against the competition.
But while we have come a long way since 2010, we’ve only reached the end of the introductory chapter of this story. For many years to come the state is going to be facing, here and across the world, the same combination of tight budgets, rising expectations and challenging economic circumstances.
We’re going to continue to be expected to deliver more for less; so the transformation can never cease – spreading deeper and wider, further and faster. Public service mutuals should be front and centre of that transformation. So we now need to move on the next chapter in this story.
First, I want to remove the blocks that obstruct motivated staff from spinning out from public sector control.
I can announce today plans to establish a peer review scheme to support staff and local authorities interested and involved in developing mutuals. Working with the Local Government Association, we’re looking to establish a voluntary programme that will offer best practice advice and examine perceived barriers to spinning out.
And our new Commissioning Academy will continue to build among commissioners across the public sector knowledge and confidence in how to support and negotiate new spinouts.
Second, I want to encourage even more spinouts in those areas where significant numbers of mutuals have already been created, such as healthcare.
Next month, following his review of staff engagement in the NHS, Chris Ham will provide a set of recommendations to government. Chris’ review has looked at how to give staff a stronger role in their organisations, including through mutual models. This included looking at Circle’s incredibly successful strategy for empowering and engaging staff at Hinchingbrooke NHS Trust and supporting frontline staff in delivering service change.
And we’re also working with the Department of Health to explore options for increasing staff control across the NHS, including expanding the Right to Provide.
Third, we’re going to focus our efforts on sectors with the greatest potential. I have spoken about the potential in youth services and adult social care where there are huge opportunities for mutualisation. We are also working to expand the offer in children’s services and in acute trusts. I have ensured that the current probation reforms have mutuals as a serious delivery option. We’ve even had expressions of interest from fire brigades about mutualising fire services in 1 or 2 areas. Fourth, because what we’re seeing here is the creation of a whole new sector of organisations, I want to ensure that their progress and successes are recorded and underpinned by quality data which is freely available.
So far we’ve done much of the research in-house, in keeping with the kind of start-up nature of this programme. But as with any successful policy, maturity is marked by the state taking a step back.
I am pleased to announce that Cabinet Office we’re working with the Employee Ownership Association to set up a networked centre that brings together all the data on spinouts into one place, allowing everyone to see how they’re performing and what they’re achieving. That’s the next chapter in this story.
The potential for growth is echoed in the private sector experience too. The employee owned sector has been one of the quiet success stories of the British economy in the last 20 years. Companies which are employee owned, or which have large and significant employee ownership stakes, now account for over £25 billion in total annual turnover. And they’re helping to lead the economic recovery, by growing at a rate 50% higher than the economy at large.
So support for employee ownership across both sectors has been and will remain a priority for this government and a core part of our long-term economic plan, a point reinforced by the Chancellor in last week’s Budget, which confirmed 3 new tax reliefs to encourage and promote employee ownership; I’m sure you all look forward to seeing more detail on these in the Finance Bill being published I think later this week. This had a nostalgic resonance for me. I recall as Financial Secretary to the Treasury working on the tax measures to support employee ownership that appeared in the 1991 Budget! This will always, I suspect, be a work in progress.
So, to conclude, 35 years on from Robert Oakeshott creating the Employee Ownership Association, now is the time to put employee ownership right at the heart of our public services.
Shifting power away from the centre and diversifying the range of public service providers is a historic opportunity to redesign how public services are delivered - not just to reduce costs, but to improve service, increase staff morale and stimulate growth.
And that’s a winning combination.
The move will save more than £19 million a year for the taxpayer, including an annual saving of more than £8.5million for the Department for Education (DfE). The Grade II listed building will also be transformed into a modern workplace.
The freehold Old Admiralty Building (OAB) is the largest of the Admiralty Buildings in Whitehall and has been home to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) since the 1960s. However, DfE intends to move into the building in September 2017 following the FCO’s decision to leave the building and consolidate its London staff into one HQ in the King Charles Street.
The DfE will release its leasehold accommodation at Sanctuary Buildings as part of the government’s ongoing work to streamline its property estate. Moving to a freehold property provides excellent value for money as it means the DfE will not have to renegotiate a lease and it will be much cheaper to run in the future.
Refurbishment of OAB will see the building transformed into a more modern working environment with nearly double the number of workstations, while preserving the site’s heritage. It is hoped that the re-development will involve greater public access to this historic building.
The proposed move is the latest step by DfE to reduce the cost of its property estate. Since May 2010 it has reduced the annual cost of its buildings by £17 million. DfE will save another £2.5million in 2014 through moving out of buildings in Guildford, Cambridge and central London.
The move is a direct result of the Cabinet Office’s programme to consolidate and modernise the government estate. By moving staff to alternative locations, encouraging departments to share office space and developing more flexible ways of working, the government has been able to sell unnecessary freeholds and exploit break clauses in under-used leaseholds. So far, over 1,000 leasehold properties have been vacated and over £1 billion raised for the taxpayer by selling more than 770 buildings and land we no longer need.
Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude said:
As part of our long term economic plan, we’re getting more value from our property by letting go of properties that no longer suit our needs and reaping maximum benefit for both the taxpayer and the wider economy.
This work saved hard working taxpayers £620 million last year alone but we’re determined to go further and this is a great example of a deal that not only releases property elsewhere in our portfolio but delivers a modern office building that is needed if we want to become the most effective civil service in the world.
Education Minister Michael Gove said:
By moving into the Old Admiralty Building we will be saving the taxpayer millions and freeing up money that was being spent on rent so it can be reinvested back into the department’s budget.
This decision makes sense financially and shows how the government is getting the most benefit possible for every square metre of property we own and every pound of taxpayers’ money we spend.
The move follows the announcement of a restoration project that will see Admiralty Arch turned into a publicly accessible landmark hotel. The 99 year lease agreement signed between the government and Prime Investors Capital in October 2012 will raise an additional £60 million from the sale of Admiralty Arch’s leasehold, as well as creating jobs within the restoration project.
The rainbow flag will fly above the Cabinet Office and Scotland Office this weekend. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg has asked for the flag to be flown to mark the historic milestone for civil rights, as the first same sex weddings take place in Britain.
Ceremonies are expected in England and Wales from this Saturday (29 March) and throughout the weekend after the Marriage (Same Sex) Act was passed in July 2013.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:
As all the same sex couples make their vows this weekend, they will be making history.
Finally, after years of campaigning, any couple who wants to get married can get married. Together we’ve made our country a place where we celebrate love equally, gay or straight – and for that reason we should all be raising a glass.
Raising the rainbow flag on Whitehall is a small symbol to celebrate a massive achievement. I want to wish everyone getting married this weekend the very best of luck, on what is a truly momentous occasion.
The rainbow flag will be flown on the Cabinet Office (70 Whitehall) and the Scotland Office from Friday (28 March) afternoon until Monday (31 March) morning.
Updated: Added statement for 27 March.
This page sets out the Business Statements by the Leader of the House of Commons for February 2014.
The Business Statement takes place every Thursday morning when the House is sitting, usually at 11.30 am. Statements are available here shortly after being announced to the House.
Updated: Review of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 published. Details added to Big Society Capital page.
It’s not as easy as it could be for people to give their time and skills to society and the local community. Because it’s not easy to do, people aren’t becoming as actively involved in their community as they could be - and want to be.
We’ve identified ways to help create and encourage social action - making it easier for people to work together to benefit their community and the lives of those within it.
To make it easier for people to get involved and help their local community, we will:
We’re also helping young people to develop skills and make a difference in their community through the National Citizen Service, a full-time programme for 16 and 17-year-olds in England that encourages personal and social development.
Promoting social action (giving, both of time and money) is part of the wider vision for Big Society, which is part of the Coalition agreement. This has been outlined in the:
The Giving green paper sets out government’s ideas for increasing the levels of giving and how to make social action the social norm. Its purpose was to start talks that would lead to the Giving white paper.
The Giving white paper explains how we intend to make giving, both time and money, as easy and appealing as possible, and give better support to those that provide and manage opportunities to give, such as charities.
The Giving white paper – one year on reports on the progress made since the publication of the Giving white paper, and sets out what we plan to achieve in the future.
We work with a range of groups and organisations to help us meet our aims stated above. Nesta supports a number of our programmes including the Innovation in Giving Fund and the Centre for Social Action.
Through the Social Action Fund we provide financial support to organisations such as Vinspired and the Citizenship Foundation in order to help them promote social action to new audiences and help achieve the aims of the government. This is also why we support Join In who are embedding the Olympic legacy of volunteering and delivering a summer programme of action.
In June 2012, the Prime Minister commissioned Dame Julia Cleverdon and Amanda Jordan OBE to carry out a review on social action for young people between the ages 10 and 20 with the view of increasing the quantity and quality of the opportunities for young people. They have developed the Campaign for Youth Social Action, supported by HRH The Prince of Wales and business, voluntary and education organisations.
Updated: Added Departmental Improvement Plan for Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Defra and Department for Work and Pensions.
Departmental Improvement Plans set out what departments will do to ensure the long term health and success of the department. They are designed to be a useful tool to help departments focus on priorities for improvement.
The model is based on ensuring that plans are:
Departmental Improvement Plans replaced Capability Reviews which were first developed in 2005 and refreshed in 2009. A pilot exercise was conducted from October 2012 to June 2013 and resulted in the publication of Departmental Improvement Plans for: Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Revenue and Customs.
Since summer 2013, the new model of Departmental Improvement Plans has been rolled out across government. All government departments are expected to publish their Improvement Plans by April 2014 and these will be made available here, along with the plans from departments that participated in the pilot exercise.
The plan is based on 5 themes of effectiveness:
It sets out:
Departmental Improvement Plans replaced Capability Reviews.
Updated: Added link to current recruitment opportunities.
The Office is currently recruiting for Assistant Parliamentary Counsel.
I joined the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) in 2008. After being called to the Bar in 1999, I spent a brief spell in private practice before setting on a course that led me to work with the judiciary, in Parliament and in different parts of the executive. I became interested in statutory interpretation whilst working as a judicial assistant to the Law Lords. Then as a Parliamentary legal officer working with a Peer, I was closely involved with bill and committee work and became gripped by the endlessly fascinating world of Parliament. I also worked as a Law Commission lawyer drafting law reform proposals and as an advisory lawyer at the Ministry of Justice during which time I instructed colleagues at OPC on bills.
The work of the Parliamentary Counsel is unique and exciting. The intellectual challenges are immense and richly rewarding. For me the best bits of the job are:
Our expertise is in the skill of drafting. We are not subject specialists; we each draft across a wide range of subject areas which is another stimulating aspect of the work. The bills I have worked on to date include matters relating to immigration, local government, social housing, families and children, the justice system and most recently finance.
I studied law at university before qualifying as a barrister. After pupillage in a common law set of chambers I spent 3 years working as a lawyer for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Whilst at the DTI I was involved in providing instructions to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in connection with the Civil Partnership Bill and it was during this time that I became interested in the work of the Office.
I joined the Office as an Assistant Parliamentary Counsel in September 2006. To begin with, drafting even the most straightforward of provisions proved difficult and, at times, frustrating. But with the guidance and supervision of more senior members of the Office I gradually improved and was able to make an increased contribution to the bills I worked on. After 4 years or so in the Office I was able to draft a bill of my own.
The process of analysing and clarifying the department’s policy and then trying to come up with a clear and simple way of giving effect to it can be really rewarding. It is particularly interesting to try to draft provisions that cater for a range of different situations, rather than simply applying existing legislation to a given set of facts.
Another good thing about the job is the varied nature of the work. Since joining the Office I have worked on bills and statutory instruments dealing with a wide range of issues such as the armed forces, local government re-organisation, electricity and gas suppliers, Scotch whisky, the protection of wildlife, animal testing, defamation, insolvency and legal aid.
The job involves spending long periods working alone and this can take a while to get used to. But the Office is a friendly one and advice from other members of the office is always available when needed.
I studied law and psychology at university in New Zealand before going on to qualify as a New Zealand barrister and solicitor. For the next 3 years I worked for a commercial law firm, mainly dealing with intellectual property. Then the travel bug bit and I came to the UK to study towards a Master of Laws degree. I had intended to stay for just 1 year but towards the end of my course I saw the position of Assistant Parliamentary Counsel advertised. I applied and got the job and I enjoy it so much that I have been here ever since. I have now worked for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for more than 8 years.
For me the best things about the job are being able to help shape the law rather than just interpret it, the detailed analysis that goes into designing law for a broad range of possible scenarios, and the supportive working environment.
In the beginning I found the drafting difficult and the procedural rules for taking a bill through Parliament baffling, but the Office provides good training and 1-to-1 support for new recruits and there is now comprehensive written guidance as well. Over the years I have been able to work on a huge variety of bills and statutory instruments ranging from legislation setting up a system of free bus travel for pensioners and provisions designed to combat online copyright infringement, to legislation regulating energy markets and helping people make their homes more energy-efficient. I enjoy the collaborative nature of working with bill teams to turn policy into legislative language and shepherd it successfully through Parliament.
There are also many opportunities to get involved in the corporate side of office life, like participating in drafting discussion groups and delivering training, and these provide an ideal counterbalance to the sometimes solitary work of drafting.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) launched a consultation - The census and future provision of population statistics in England and Wales on 23 September 2013.
This is the response made by the government in January 2014.
The ONS and the UK Statistics Authority presented the outcome of the consultation and advice to the government in March 2014.
Updated: Added project report providing an evaluation of the mobile trials.
In the event of an emergency, it is vital that information is given to the public as quickly as possible so that they can take the necessary action to keep themselves and their families safe. This action might involve evacuation, taking shelter, or simply keeping a watching brief on the situation.
The Civil Contingencies Secretariat are working with the mobile industry and local responders to test public emergency alerts carried out by mobile alerting.