Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

The Committee scrutinised the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s decision to lay special reports before Parliament on the Charity Commission cases, and the Charity Commission’s disputed understanding of the PHSO’s remit, jurisdiction and compliance expectations. Witnesses from both bodies said the relationship had improved and that an MOU and joint scenario work were under way, but the Committee pressed the PHSO on whether complainants were caught in the crossfire and pressed the Charity Commission on its legal advice, its decision to seek judicial review, and why safeguarding and disqualification decisions were handled so conservatively. The Charity Commission accepted it was not proud of its conduct, apologised to the complainants, and said it had learned lessons, while also arguing that statutory powers and resources are misaligned and that Government must address legislative and regulatory gaps.

This session of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee scrutinised the UK standards system, focusing on the consolidation of ethics governance, the role and powers of the new Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC), and government plans to drive cultural change in public life. Key government commitments include expanding the remit of the Ethics and Integrity Commission (by folding in the CSPL with expanded powers), issuing annual reports and engaging publicly on standards, and responding to EIC outputs within a six-week window (and in autumn for EIC recommendations). The witnesses highlighted practical steps such as maintaining ministerial accountability, introducing the duty of candour legislation, pursuing further legislation on the Lords and on ministerial/peerage issues, accelerating public appointments (with a new digital tracking system), and addressing lobbying regulation. The debate also raised concerns about unintended consequences of past legislation (e.g., lobbying and VAT rules), the complexity of local-government standards, and the need for cross-party consensus. Overall, the committee pressed for a living, breathing standards framework anchored in Nolan principles, with cross-cutting reforms spanning lobbying, peerages, public appointments, and local authorities, alongside stronger enforcement mechanisms and clearer legislative footing where appropriate.

The committee scrutinised the Ethics and Integrity Commission’s (EIC) role as successor to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), its expanded remit, independence, resourcing, and how it will engage with Parliament, the public, and devolved administrations. Key government commitments discussed include replacing CSPL with a right-sized EIC that remains advisory rather than a super-regulator, delivering an annual public letter on the constitutional/standards landscape, and developing codes of ethical conduct aligned with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Witness Doug Chalmers outlined the EIC’s evidence-based inquiry function, its approach to codes of conduct, engagement with public authorities and the wider public, and its network with regulators. Gaps and concerns raised included questions about statutory footing, the effectiveness and implementation of recommendations, overlapping Parliament–EIC activity, resources to deliver its remit, engagement clarity with local government and devolved administrations, and the ongoing challenge of restoring public trust in politics. The session also covered monitoring and accountability mechanisms for codes, the role of the Government oversight body, and local-government engagements as a priority area for standards bodies.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee questioned the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) on rising demand, backlog, and the organisation’s strategic shift toward systemic change rather than solely addressing individual redress. The two witnesses outlined: (a) a sustained increase in demand driven by trust in public services and AI-enabled complaint pathways, with backlog projected to rise and a frictional backlog target targeted by March 2027; (b) a public-value-model-based approach to prioritise cases, measure impact, and drive systemic improvements, alongside plans to improve data analytics, public engagement, and transparency; (c) governance and resourcing changes, including the reconfiguration of boards/committees and possible Treasury funding to expand staff; (d) increased proactive sharing of best practice with NHS bodies, closer alignment with CQC, and expanded digital/intake channels to manage demand while preserving accessibility. The witnesses also discussed issues around MP access pathways (the “MP filter”), the 12-month time limit for complaint intake, and ongoing engagement with government bodies (e.g., DWP, Treasury) to support strategy delivery. The session signals government and parliamentary interest in strengthening complaints handling, upskilling public bodies, and embedding complaint insights into public-service quality improvements.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee scrutinises how public inquiries, notably the Infected Blood Inquiry, are used, their value, and how recommendations are tracked and implemented. Witnesses advocate maintaining the constitutional role and public trust in inquiries while addressing practical deficiencies: excessive duration and cost, patchy implementation of recommendations, and lack of an independent, formal mechanism to oversee follow-up. A proposed national oversight mechanism (akin to the NAO) would coordinate monitoring across inquiries, coroners’ reports, and other investigations, with formal parliamentary links, potential sanctions for non-compliance, and a victims’-centred approach to defining sufficient concern for an inquiry. Government action signals discussed include reform ideas (e.g., Hillsborough Law) and calls for clearer criteria, cost-benefit assessments, and shared or joint decision-making processes to initiate inquiries when conflicts of interest or systemic issues arise.

The session scrutinised the governance, use and reform of arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). Lord Maude of Horsham outlined a strong presumption against ALBs, highlighted the chronic lack of real-time oversight and clarity across departments, and criticised the central governance framework (Cabinet Office/Treasury) as fragmented. He urged a whole-of-Government approach, senior-level departmental oversight, and a substantial central budget/management function to replace or reform the Treasury’s cross-cutting capabilities. He also reflected on the coalition-era cost-savings, the use of Henry VIII powers via the Public Bodies Bill, and the risks of political interference with independent bodies. Throughout, he emphasised the need for better depth of subject-matter knowledge within government, formal ministerial preparation, and a pragmatic, “just do it” reform mindset (JFDI) to achieve tangible progress rather than protracted deliberation. No firm current government commitments were announced, but the session surfaces explicit positions, recommendations and historical lessons for future ALB reform.