Relationship Web is a self-assessment tool based on the diagnostic questions set out in the recently published joint PCF and Institute for Government framework for effective relations. The tool allows Departments and ALBs to identify strengths and weaknesses in their relationships.

The diagnostic statements are divided into five key areas for effectiveness, as identified in ‘It takes two’: accountabilities; strategic approach; financial and performance management; communication and engagement; and relationship management. You will be asked to state how strongly you agree with each statement in the context of your relationship using the following seven point scale:

• 1 Strongly Disagree
• 2 Disagree
• 3 Disagree somewhat
• 4 Neither agree nor disagree
• 5 Agree somewhat
• 6 Agree
• 7 Strongly agree

After completing the exercise, your results are then plotted on to a ‘spider’s web’ – the further away from the centre your responses, the more effective your relationship; the idea being to stretch the web over time to improve your performance. You will then be able to download a PDF version of the ‘spider’s web’ and save this on your computer.

There will be an opportunity for individual ALBs and Departments to compare results to see how each party views their relationship. Rather than being the solution to any issues in the relationship, we hope that this exercise will act as a useful conversation starter between Department and ALB.

Getting started

To use the tool, you will first need to request access by following the link below:

http://relationshipweb.publicchairsforum.org.uk

Once you have requested access, the PCF will then generate a unique URL for you, which will allow you to start using the tool securely and confidentially.

Standard user vs super user

When requesting access, you will be asked to specify whether you require standard access or super user access. All users will be able to view their own results at the end of the questionnaire.

The super user will be able to view all results for their organisation and share these with their relevant ALB or Department. They will also be able to view results for their partner organisation, once these have been verified.

It is strongly recommended that no more than one ‘super user’ is selected per ALB and per ALB relationship within a Department.

Please note that this means there could be more than one super user within a Department, but not more than one within the Department for each ALB relationship.

If you are a super user accessing overall results, you will only be able to view results from your partner organisation if they have verified and submitted their results already. If not, you will only be able to access your own organisation’s results. All individual results are anonymous.

We recommend that each ALB and Department agrees who the super user will be prior to using the tool. 

Future Development

We plan to develop the tool over time so please do let us know how you get on with using it – we would welcome any advice on how you think it could be improved.

If for any reason your organisation does not feature on the drop down list, please do let us know and we will add this in.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with Amy Noonan (amy.noonan@publicchairsforum.org.uk) if you would like help using the tool or if you would like any further information about it before you get started.

The objectives and actions in the framework stem from interviews with chairs, chief executives and departmental sponsors about what works and what does not. This work was initiated in summer 2011 by then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus (now Lord) O’Donnell in a meeting with Chris Banks and builds on the Institute for Government’s earlier report, Read Before Burning (July 2010).

There are two other outputs to this project:

• A research report, which underpins the findings in the framework and makes several recommendations for more effective relations in the long term.

• A self-assessment tool departments and ALBs can use to test their relationship. This will be launched shortly.

Talking about the framework, Banks said:

“One of the great things about the framework is that you do not need to change anything to start using it. We hope that the combination of useful and practical advice contained within it will help Departments and ALBs build effective relations straight away.

“Provided that the framework is used proportionally and users consider the independence of the ALB in question, the framework should help all ALBs and Departments to improve the effectiveness of their relationships.”
Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government, said:

“In my Open Letter earlier this month to the new Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary, we identified unproductive relationships across the public sector, including with ALBs, as something the Civil Service could no longer afford.

“We are delighted to publish this framework and report with the Public Chairs’ Forum, and hope they will help both central government and ALBs establish more productive relations – for the benefit not only of those who work in them but also much more importantly of everyone who depends on effective public sector institutions.”
Sir Bob Kerslake, Head of the Home Civil Service, said:

“The relationship with their sponsoring departments can be critical to the day to day running of public bodies, and the public functions they are responsible for delivering. I am pleased that the Public Chairs Forum and Institute for Government have turned their considerable experience and expertise to this important but often overlooked issue, and I am grateful for the role the Government has played in its creation.

“The Government is committed to working in partnership with its bodies, to better deliver their functions to the public who often do not see the work that goes on behind them. To this end, the report makes a number of interesting and innovative recommendations…  Departments and the Cabinet Office will give all these recommendations the consideration they clearly merit.”

The event aimed to develop a better mutual understanding between Departmental Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) and Arms Length Body (ALB) board members, following the establishment of departmental boards in December 2010.

Speakers included:

• The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office (MCO), who spoke about efficiency in the public sector
• Dan Heard from Lord Browne’s office at Cabinet Office, who spoke about the role of departmental non-executives

The panel was comprised of:

• David Verey, Lead NED at DCMS
• Chris Banks, Chair of the Public Chairs’ Forum
• Ed Smith, Chair, Student Loans Company, NED at Department for Transport and for the GP Commissioning Board
• Steve Bundred, former Chair of the Audit Commission, now working for Deloitte.

The event was chaired by Zoe Gruhn, Director of Leadership at the Institute for Government and was attended by both Departmental NEDs and ALB Chairs and board members.

The MCO opened the event by speaking about the ongoing reform of public bodies.  The Public Bodies Bill received royal assent at the end of last year and has been followed by the introduction of triennial reviews for public bodies. These reviews will help to ensure that those public bodies which continue to exist remain relevant and genuinely need to operate independently.

Talking about the tendency of different Governments to create new bodies, he said: “The wildebeest gives birth whilst travelling. A bit like governments with public bodies.”

Controls have been put in place to stop unnecessary spending across departments and public bodies and to leverage the collective purchasing power of central government.  Scale mattered which was why it was vital that public bodies were in scope. The controls had worked, cutting spending dramatically in areas like marketing and advertising and consultancy.  The MCO said that public bodies could reap huge benefits from taking advantage of these opportunities. Larger public bodies can also consider sharing their services with smaller ones and innovative thinking like this is being encouraged.

Paper recycling was given as an example of a relatively small measure where pooling activity could bring considerable benefits; not just in terms of price of recycled paper but by also allowing UK recycling capacity to develop if there was enough guaranteed feedstock.  But that meant that bodies had to be prepared to accept a change in the shade of paper they used.  The MCO sent a clear message to public bodies that they must commit to saving money and improving efficiencies. He also spoke about the benefit of the ‘family’ ie Chairs and Senior NEDs to come together with NEDs on the Boards.

One participant asked the MCO about the presumption for the test of independence. The response was political impartiality, undertaking a technical function, or the quantification and measurement of facts.

The role of the Departmental Non-Executive

Dan Heard, from the office of Lord Browne of Madingley, Government Lead Non-Executive,  followed the Minister with an overview of the role of Departmental Non-Executives. He pointed to three phases of activity since Lord Browne’s appointment in June 2010:

• Creating the conditions for Enhanced Departmental Boards – appointing 59 high-calibre non-executives across all ministerial departments, and developing a Corporate Governance Code setting out the roles and responsibilities of Boards and Board members

• Identifying and agreeing five cross cutting-themes where Non-Executives will focus:

- Strategic Clarity
- Commercial Sense
- Talented People
- Results Focus
- Management Information

• Establishing projects to drive change in specific areas covered by one or more of the five themes. The work that David Verey, for example, is leading for the Non-Executives on the relationship between Departments and ALBs is a good example of this.

Panel Discussion – what do these reforms mean in practice?

David Verey started the panel discussion by underlining the importance of clear governance arrangements. Getting clear management information systems in place is crucial. He spoke about the diversity of ALBs and said that this is something that both sides of the relationship should consider, “With ALBs, there is no one size fits all and each ALB will come up with a different measure of risk.”

Speaking about the sponsorship of ALBs, he said, “A lot of the difficulty comes from junior people coming into departments and dealing with these relationships.”

Chris Banks spoke about the massive value that departmental non-executives and Chairs and board members of ALBs represent and explained how it is now crucial to ensure that this cadre works well together.  He stated that strategic alignment can be achieved as a by-product to this. In addition, he pointed to the importance of clarity over objectives and the avoidance of anything managerial in the relationship.

Transparency in the relationship was also cited as important. Both sides should aim to achieve a good, honest and robust relationship. The PCF and IFG joint guide to transparency best practice in ALBs contains useful indicators on how such a relationship can be achieved. The next joint report will build on this, considering the key components to effective relations between ALBs and Departments and is being published next month.

Ed Smith added his perspectives on the role of Cabinet Office in the relationship between ALB and Department saying, “There needs to be clarity on the accountability for ALBs as a key part of policy delivery in order to avoid being held back by excessive approval mechanisms which often end up with risk transfer to the Centre where it is probably not really wanted.”

In response to the Minister’s comments about increasing efficiency, he added that cost savings must be delivered in a way that is consistent with policy delivery. In order to make a tripartite collaboration, he said that it is important to determine who is truly accountable first and then work within that system.

Steve Bundred added that if there is to be greater consistency and alignment between Department Non-Executives and ALBs, ALBs probably need to know more about what’s going on. There is a question about what they need to know and how they can find out about it. He also drew attention to the increasing expectations of non-executive directors and spoke about the need to ensure that they are all equipped with the right skills so that they can meet these demands.

Breakout sessions followed in which attendees discussed the emerging issues and fed back their thoughts and comments to the rest of the group. For example, Andrew Summers, Chair of Companies House, made a point on behalf of his group relating to the need to understand what ALBs are as well as the proportionalities in relation to financial, political risk and potential failure. 

Sir Bill Callaghan, Chair or the Marine Management Organisation and Legal Services Commission, stressed first principles; if the role of Department is to support and challenge, then how much do they need to know to perform that role?  It was important that a framework agreement is adhered to, which was also mentioned by David Verey.

The consensus was that there is real potential to build on these discussions in order to increase understanding on both sides of the relationship. As part of this, it was agreed that NEDs would take the issues raised back to their departments.

Below is a summary of the points raised by Peter at a PCF seminar in January in relation to current government challenges and the role of the Institute for Government.

Key challenges for Government

• Continued austerity

• Public consent for the actions of government.

• Constitutional and intergovernmental challenges.
The implications for multi party control - seven parties controlling four governments (London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast).

• Role asserting parliament
Changes in relations and role. Select Committee Chairs see roles very differently as they feel they have more authority now.

• The role of the Public Accounts Committee

• Competing views within Government.

• Change in Whitehall

Department downsizing, new Civil Service leadership, the first reshuffle likely later this year –  this will mean departments have to manage relations differently.

The role of the Institute for Government in addressing these challenges

The Institute for Government is able to ask questions that aren’t always possible within Government. It brings people from Whitehall together and enables them to have conversations that don’t happen elsewhere.

There is often a lack of institutional memory within Government. The Institute for Government fills this gap and gets into debates that civil service find difficult to do. The Institute’s degree of engagement with Government versus its independence is a constant challenge.

Over the next five years, the Institute for Government will aim to enter a new stage with Whitehall, with Ministers and with opposition parties. It will:

• Continue its engagement with politicians and civil servants.
• Develop its international links
• Increasingly highlight its reform programmes publicly.

Areas of joint work and interest for the Public Chairs’ Forum and the Institute for Government

• Departmental Board work We are hosting a joint event on developing better mutual understanding between departmental NEDs and ALB boards on 27 February, together with Deloitte.

• Public appointments
Select Committees are being increasingly assertive in this area.

• The Institute for Government is reviewing progress after Read Before Burning. Understanding Chairs’ experiences is very helpful to the Institute’s work. Other follow up work on this includes joint projects on transparency and on ALB/departmental relations, which is ongoing. 

Other challenges

• There is an issue with the current rate of turnover of Permanent Secretaries, Directors and Director Generals within departments.
• How do we help government perceive public bodies as valued? There are tremendous ambiguities associated with this.

The event provided an opportunity to overview progress to date and to give a flavour of the challenges to come, and for Sir Gus to offer some reflections on his time in office in advance of his departure.

Acknowledging the difficulty of the last period for public bodies, the Minister extended his thanks to those organisations for their support during what has been a particularly unsettling time. The Public Bodies Act received Royal Assent on 14 December and will allow departments to deliver a large number of reforms to public bodies as announced in 2010.

But the process of public service reform is only at the beginning. The Government plans to open up public services and ‘give choice’ where possible. This includes opening up the provision of public services to wider civil society. Existing examples include British Waterways and NESTA, where their respective functions are moving from the public sector to the charity sector.

Mutuals have been widely encouraged by Government and Maude reiterated their continuing importance in the reforms. Citing the benefits, he pointed to improved efficiency, less administrative costs and less constraint than is associated within house structures. He added that budget constraints mean that everyone in the public sector needs to be doing things differently.

Gus O’Donnell spoke about civil service engagement.  Despite concerns from some that engagement would reduce during the pay freeze, the scores had not so far been negatively affected. He spoke about the need to get the right balance between pride within the civil service, something that is currently very high, and ensuring value for money within Government. Pensions were used as an example – if these are not affordable, then the issue needs to be addressed.

And although outsourcing can provide innovative solutions and improved efficiencies, Sir Gus O’Donnell warned of potential problems to bear in mind. These included differences in terms and conditions, which can be difficult to equalise, as well as the variable success that outsourcing has had to date.

Sir Gus ended with some advice to Chairs of public bodies:


• Chairs should take a proactive approach to triennial reviews. It is important not to see it as a defensive exercise. Take the opportunity to propose new ideas.
• Duplication of information requests is an issue. Departments are working towards increasing comparable data. There is a need for more standardisation.
• The relationship between an ALB and its sponsoring department is something that is in need of attention. There is an imbalance in the relationship currently, which could be helped by Chairs taking a proactive approach to address it, for example, by feeding back where information requests are disproportionate.

Benefits of going online

Research from PWC shows that middle income families will save up to £560 annually by going online, net of costs, while those on low incomes will save £240, which comes from savings made by paying by Direct Debit etc. Likelihood of getting a job goes up 25% and salary in work rises by 10% for those online. Children with access at home see a two grade increase at GCSE. People’s confidence increases and loneliness – crucial among the elderly population who remain disproportionately offline - is reduced. 

Race Online

Race Online 2012 is the cross-sector campaign launched by Martha Lane Fox to ‘inspire, encourage and support’ get people online. Its ambition is ‘to make the UK the first nation in the world where everyone can use the web.
Race Online receives minimal Government funding (and Martha Lane Fox herself waived the fee she was offered for her post) and uses its partners’ assets to get people online. The campaign has 1200 partners, ranging from the very small, to the very big such as Post Office, libraries network, UK Online centre network, Job Centre Plus and Mecca Bingo.

“Give an hour” is a recent example of Race Online’s work.  Led and promoted by the BBC, with editorial, talent and educational resources, this public-facing campaign sought to address the reason most people (64%) cite for not going online: lack of motivation. It encouraged the 40 million adults in the UK who have internet skills to to spend the hour they gained when the clocks went back in October inspiring and encouraging an offline friend, family member or neighbour to try the web for the first time. . Race Online has also brought out low-cost high quality refurbished PC and connectivity offers to remove cost as a barrier (a factor for 23% of offline population); launched a national network of ‘local digital champions’ who can offer support and encouragement locally and within organizations, and a blueprint for councils, ‘Go On places’. 

‘Digital by Default’

In tandem with Race Online 2012, Martha Lane Fox has been advising Government on its own use of digital. She conducted a review of DirectGov, the Government’s web estate, all of whose recommendations were accepted by Francis Maude, and which has resulted in the launch of the new Government Digital Service in December 2011. The organizing principle behind her recommendations to Government is ‘digital by default’ – i.e., justifying why something shouldn’t be done online, not why it should. At Google, employees are taught to think internet first. Online should be the primary option. There is some resonance from government for this approach; the challenge now is implementing it. Mike Bracken, founder of the Guardian ecosystem, is now heading up the

The principle is that the home page should be Google. Or, it should be as simple as Google to use. Websites should start with what people come to Government to look for, as opposed to telling them what they want.
Not only does this benefit government in terms of efficiency savings, and better, more responsive services, but it also benefits the people who are least likely to use the internet – those on pension and benefits - are most likely to use government services. Making Government websites easier to use makes it easier for everyone. Educating people to use the internet needs to be taken seriously. Government needs to take the lead and educate people; this skills is now as fundamental as learning to read.

Greater efficiency through digitalisation

Digital boards are an example of greater efficiency and effectiveness. Martha Lane Fox sits on the boards for M&S and Channel 4. At Marks and Spencer, big paper packs have now been exchanged for an iPad, which is delivered to board members before the meeting.

Roundtable discussion – key points included:

• Going digital versus government spend restrictions: caution was urged over massive spends – things can be designed much more cheaply.

• People who are in leadership positions may not be that knowledgeable, or at the cutting edge of digitalisation. Adaptability needs to be hard wired. A broader look at how government structures work is necessary – one solution is to have more young people on boards.

• The digital agenda was previously with local government. This has now shifted to central government. The Prime Minister is supportive, as well as Francis Maude and Iain Duncan Smith – Duncan Smith has referred to it as a ‘tool against poverty’.

• MLF is only tasked with looking at adults. However, she has been shocked by how few children have exposure to the internet at school. She is interested in using the digital skills of children to help adults.

• There is a big divide between those children that have access at home and those who don’t.

• The importance of the customer is something that is crucial and should be at the heart of digitalisation. 

• Lose/tight – what’s the right balance? User design should be tightly controlled.

• Having a digital impact assessment in every regulation is a good idea.

• Issue of IT in Government - new systems are needed and certain contracts need to be renegotiated to make digitalisation work.

• Is the political cycle of governments too short to make real change?

• International examples of digitally advanced and capable countries include Estonia, Lithuania, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and Australia.

Martha closed by encouraging all chairs to join her in the championing role in their organisations and to commit to being Digital by default; i.e. for us all to play our part in leading the culture change that is needed.

• Good corporate governance
• Roles, responsibilities and relationships
• Standards of behaviour in public life
• Effective financial management and transparency

This guide is recommended reading for all Chairs and board members of public bodies. It pin points existing guidance and requirements for public body boards, building on them to provide a comprehensive and extensive guide for Chairs and board members of public bodies in England.

Chris Banks CBE, Chair of the PCF, said:

“The PCF is committed to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services by supporting Chairs of public bodies in their roles. This guide equips Chairs and board members with the information and advice that they will need to perform their role effectively.

“The development of the guide has been overseen by a steering group of PCF members, who have ensured that it adds value to all Chairs and Board members of public bodies, whatever their role and whatever their level of experience.

“A lot is written about good governance, but what we aimed to do here was produce a very practical guide for Chairs. And thanks to the steering group and CIPFA, that’s what we have done.”

Jon Graham, Managing Director of CIPFA, said:

“Current economic conditions make it a challenging time to sit on the board of a public body. These boards play a critical role in ensuring good governance and performance and it is essential that board members are equipped to rise to the task.

“This guide provides essential information for Chairs and board members to ensure that they make the most of their position and are as effective as possible.”

Board Governance Essentials is available for purchase from the CIPFA website and is free of charge for all members of the Public Chairs’ Forum.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• Members of the PCF steering group are as follows:

Chris Banks CBE, Chair of the Public Chairs’ Forum
Sir Bert Massie, Former Chair of the Commission for the Compact
Robert Napier CBE, Chair of the Homes and Communities Agency and the Met Office
Ed Smith, Chair of the Student Loans Company
Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission
Anne Watts CBE, Chair of the Appointments Commission

• For media enquiries please contact amy.noonan@publicchairsforum.org.uk on 0207 7470491

Public Bodies have received a great deal of attention under the Coalition government. Much of the government’s first year has focused on their reorganisation and reform. There has been less consideration of the more fundamental issue of the relationship between government departments and the arm’s length bodies they sponsor. Yet since most public bodies are continuing in some form, this remains really important – to the body, to the government and to the taxpayer. It has been consistently identified as a problem by Public Chairs’ Forum members.  And lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities of government and its ALBs, and relations ranging from micro-management to benign neglect, were highlights in the Insitute for Government’s report Read Before Burning.

A new project –  being done jointly between the Public Chairs’ Forum and the Institute for Government – is looking at how best to create effective relations between central government and ALBs. Looking at a range of arm’s-length bodies in terms of size, scope and subject, and across government departments, we are seeking to identify examples of ‘good practice’ and pitfalls to avoid. In conducting a series of interviews with public body chairs and chief executives, as well as Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and people running or working in sponsor teams, we aim to capture perspectives from multiple sides of the relationship and produce a practical guide. 

Consistently raised by all parties is the need for greater ‘strategic alignment’. In many cases, departments and arm’s length bodies share an understanding of operational functions, but are less in synch in their strategy and broader priorities. The effectiveness of relations looks to depend not only on meaningful framework agreements, but also on the quality of personal relations. As one sponsor comments, ‘people without structures are hopeless and structures without people are barren and cold’. The initial findings indicate there is no ‘best model’ for engagement. However, there is unanimous agreement so far on the importance of openness, frankness and an embedded ‘no surprises’ rule.

This project is still underway. We aim to report in March. We would appreciate your thoughts.

The National Audit Office (NAO) helps parliament hold Secretary of States to account for the efficiency and effectiveness of the economy. It reports on the value for money in departments and projects.

The NAO has 3 primary strategic themes, all of which are enabling in nature:

• mature financial management
• cost effective government
• informed government (appropriate use of information in government).

The NAO champions effective and appropriate financial management and increases quality.

The public sector is increasingly information driven; this needs to be understood and integrated into finance.

It is important to recognise that public audit is very different to private audit.

Transparency

- Transparency should be contextualised, standardised, timely, accurate and high quality.

- It is a powerful motivator (fear of embarrassment through exposure)

- Transparency takes on a lot of the same characteristics as management information. These two things should be approached in the same way. Information should be structured, detailed and maintained.

- People should produce the information that is needed to run organisations effectively –the cost benefit and value for money should always be a principle consideration.

- Achieving useful transparency is difficult and this needs to be acknowledged.

- Implementing transparency can create a fear of precedent. Information is power, and people can be fearful of letting go of this power.

Accountability

Both the NAO and Chairs of public bodies have an important role to play in improving accountability.

There is a risk that Departments operate on a compliance basis rather than questioning what they are doing these things for. NAO and Chairs have a key role to play in helping Departments to think in a different way.

Focus needs to be on the sponsoring unit within Departments. There is a tendency for the civil service to be pre-occupied with policy development, and not with running a business or achieving value for money.

Discussion focused on some key areas:

- Department boards and public body boards

- How to ensure Chairs are aware of private issues
The role of the Board:

- There is an issue of accounting officer versus board; it is difficult to find a coherent statement about what the board is about. What is the role of the board beyond advisory?

- There is often a desire for public boards to operate similarly to those within the private sector, but this needs to be reconciled with the role of the accounting officer.

- There is also a risk that boards become like stakeholder boards, without the necessary skills in place, which can result from a lack of understanding. A change in management skills is needed.

- Boards need people who are sharp commercially and who push value for money.

- The Audit Committee has a powerful role to play.

Risk management

Is risk management as good as it can be? The NAO has a campaign for a more intelligent approach to risk management. Audit and risk could be an area to develop in Amyas Morse’s role.

Outcome

The Public Chairs’ Forum and the NAO have overlapping agendas and it was agreed that both sides would look for ways to continue working together in the future. Anything that can be done to get people more engaged in this agenda is important.

More openness and transparency in Public Bodies (otherwise known as “quangos”) could help restore the public’s confidence in them, says The Public Chairs’ Forum (PCF).

The PCF, which is the member organisation for Chairs of public bodies, is launching a practical guide to help public chairs take the next step towards greater transparency. The guide, published jointly with the Institute for Government, paves the way for public bodies to take a leading role in increasing transparency in their organisations.

Transparency in Arm’s Length Bodies – A Guide to Best Practice encourages public bodies to publish not only data, but also information on the wider issues of what these organisations are there to do: how they are governed; how they make decisions; how well they perform and how to access or complain about their activities. It identifies the key components of “useful” transparency in public bodies and puts the needs of citizens and customers at its heart. Research undertaken for the report suggests that casting light on these issues will be important to improving overall public confidence in public bodies.

The guide is the result of an extensive series of interviews and meetings with senior officials in public bodies, public chairs, government departments, oversight and citizen advisory groups, academia, the private sector and not-for-profit sector, and the Cabinet Office.
Key Principles

The guide suggests that information presented by Arms Length Bodies(ALBs) should be:

  * readily accessible and useable
  * relevant to the needs of different audiences
  * timely
  * put in context and explained and
  * proportionate

The guide also features practical tips on how ALB websites should be organised, and offers advice on improving overall transparency. To make things simple for users, it recommends that all public bodies organise the information they provide under four headings:

  * Customers and citizens - the services we offer, how to get involved and how to give feedback
  * Performance - how we are doing
  * Governance - how we are run and how we make decisions
  * Data - the data we hold

The guide also gives additional measures that public bodies requiring the highest degree of openness can consider.

Chris Banks, Chair of the Public Chairs’ Forum, says:

Public Bodies are responsible for spending large amounts of tax payers’ money and it is important that the general public understands how this money is spent. We hope that the guide’s response to this will help to increase public confidence in public bodies.

  By setting these guidelines, we are responding to the Government’s request to be more open, but in addition to publishing data, our guide encourages public bodies to respond to other questions that the general public may have – Who are these bodies? What do they do? And how good are they at doing it? Holding a shining light on the operations of ALBs may be uncomfortable in the short term, but it will bring benefit to everyone in the long term, by showing exactly where these organisations are adding value

Speaking about the guide, Lord Adonis, Director of the Institute for Government, said:

  Arm’s length bodies are characterised as unaccountable and inefficient. Too often it is hard for people to find out key information – like how they are funded, who they account to, how they make decisions and how their performance compares with similar bodies. Our report, “Read Before Burning”, recommended that ALBs take a lead by making information on the way they operate easily accessible. This guide sets out how they can do that. The greatest value will come if information is put in context and produced on a comparable basis by like bodies. We, together with the Public Chairs’ Forum, are keen to encourage all public bodies to take the steps set out in the guide

Andrew Summers is chair of Companies House, which will be the first public body to pilot the guide. A member of the PCF, he also belongs to the working group that has overseen its development. Speaking about the guide, he said:

Companies House is delighted to be the one of the first public bodies to pilot the recommendations of this transparency guide. We are a very customer-centric organisation and implementing this guide gives us the opportunity to be at the leading edge of transparency best practice for the benefit of our customers, our stakeholders and all citizens.

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Transparency in Public Bodies – A Guide to Best Practice builds on a number of recent developments:

  * the Institute for Government’s report ‘Read Before Burning’ which recommended ALBs to publish information on their status and operations in a standardised format online, in turn improving the transparency of their organisations
  * the Public Chairs’ Forum’s desire for ALBs to be at the cutting edge of transparency best practice and
  * the Government’s ambitious transparency agenda, with a commitment to extend transparency to “every area of public life”.

2. The guide complies with and builds on the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) detailed guidance on the type of information that it expects non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to provide in order to meet their Freedom of Information commitments and the Cabinet Office Principles of Good Corporate Governance in Executive NDPBs, released in June 2011 which makes an “explicit commitment to openness in all activities”

3. For media enquiries contact amy.noonan@publicchairsforum.org.uk on 0207 7470491