Executive Accountability
#8Key Findings
With a generally positive balance, the United Kingdom performs well (rank 8) with respect to executive accountability. Its score on this measure has improved by 0.6 points as compared to its 2014 level.
Parliamentarians, especially in the opposition, have relatively few resources, though formal oversight powers are adequate. The National Audit Office is independent and well-regarded. The ombuds system has been expanded in recent years. An information commissioner enforces data-protection laws.
For widely discussed issues, UK citizens show a high degree of policy knowledge in international comparison. The government went to considerable lengths to keep the population informed during the pandemic, while media outlets held policymakers to account. Although the country’s main broadcast media produce high-quality news programming, newspaper quality varies widely.
Parties allow members – and in Labour’s case, “registered supporters” – to elect leaders, but other decisions are more centralized. Economic-interest organizations are capable of formulating policies, but their lack of influence during the Brexit process revealed their limitations. Civil-society organizations are also sophisticated and offer reasonable, if sometimes narrow, proposals.
Parliamentarians, especially in the opposition, have relatively few resources, though formal oversight powers are adequate. The National Audit Office is independent and well-regarded. The ombuds system has been expanded in recent years. An information commissioner enforces data-protection laws.
For widely discussed issues, UK citizens show a high degree of policy knowledge in international comparison. The government went to considerable lengths to keep the population informed during the pandemic, while media outlets held policymakers to account. Although the country’s main broadcast media produce high-quality news programming, newspaper quality varies widely.
Parties allow members – and in Labour’s case, “registered supporters” – to elect leaders, but other decisions are more centralized. Economic-interest organizations are capable of formulating policies, but their lack of influence during the Brexit process revealed their limitations. Civil-society organizations are also sophisticated and offer reasonable, if sometimes narrow, proposals.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent are citizens informed of public policies?
10
9
9
Most citizens are well-informed of a broad range of public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many citizens are well-informed of individual public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few citizens are well-informed of public policies; most citizens have only a rudimental knowledge of public policies.
2
1
1
Most citizens are not aware of public policies.
The UK government provides considerable information to its citizens through detailed websites, both at the core executive and the ministerial level. This flow of information has been enhanced in recent years. These websites contain general information, progress reports and statistical data. As part of its online material, the government makes some effort to ensure that citizens use this information by targeting specific groups. For example, a digital voter registration toolkit was developed in conjunction with a single-parent charity, while the “Rock Enrol!@” pack was designed to engage young people. The most important source of knowledge for citizens is TV broadcasting, followed by newspapers and radio. Throughout the pandemic, the government went to considerable lengths to keep the public informed. Public information campaigns involved frequent advertisements explaining through simple messages (e.g., “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives”) what the government expected, and both ministers and scientific advisers gave frequent briefings – daily when the pandemic was at its worst.
The share of those claiming knowledge of politics rose during the 2010s by about 10 percentage points, indicating a subjectively better understanding of politics by citizens in the United Kingdom. A 2018 Ipsos MORI “peril of perception” poll found the United Kingdom to be at the higher end of knowledge of widely discussed issues, though behind the better-informed Nordic countries. Significant efforts were made to track opinion on matters relating to the pandemic and given airtime in political programs aired on terrestrial channels.
Nevertheless, a telling figure is that the proportion of citizens voting in certain television talent competitions is higher than in many national elections.
Citations:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/perils-perception-2018
The share of those claiming knowledge of politics rose during the 2010s by about 10 percentage points, indicating a subjectively better understanding of politics by citizens in the United Kingdom. A 2018 Ipsos MORI “peril of perception” poll found the United Kingdom to be at the higher end of knowledge of widely discussed issues, though behind the better-informed Nordic countries. Significant efforts were made to track opinion on matters relating to the pandemic and given airtime in political programs aired on terrestrial channels.
Nevertheless, a telling figure is that the proportion of citizens voting in certain television talent competitions is higher than in many national elections.
Citations:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/perils-perception-2018
Does the government publish data and information in a way that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a comprehensive, timely and user-friendly way.
8
7
6
7
6
The government most of the time publishes data and information in a comprehensive, timely and user-friendly way.
5
4
3
4
3
The government publishes data in a limited and not timely or user-friendly way.
2
1
1
The government publishes (almost) no relevant data.
The United Kingdom is highly committed to its open government agenda. It is a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, which since its beginning in 2011 has become a major global advocate for citizens’ free access to government data. Parliament, the government and the civil service reliably and timely publish all not-restricted documents on their websites.
The UK government has a long history of publishing official statistics, and since 2007 this has been governed by the Statistics and Registration Service Act. The act created the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department, with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as an executive agency within the department (ONS previously reported into HMT). The act also created the Office for Statistics Regulation, which sets the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and oversees the accreditation of “National Statistics.” Beyond the official statistical system, the government publishes a wide array of data and is a world leader in open data. The UK government publishes an extensive array of transparency data (e.g., senior public servants’ salaries, workforce data, special adviser pay, and details of ministerial and senior officials’ meetings) – over 9,000 items on the government website (gov.uk) are categorized as “transparency data” and over 10,000 FOI requests have been published. The government also has a dedicated data portal (data.gov.uk), which makes publicly accessible over 47,000 datasets published by the UK government and other public authorities. Furthermore, the United Kingdom alongside Canada ranked first out of 30 governments in the latest Open Data Barometer (2016 – 2017) and in the OECD’s latest OURdata index (2017) the United Kingdom ranked 4th out of 31 countries.
Committee and working group meetings are streamed via a range of online platforms (e.g., YouTube and FacebookLive). Furthermore, the government provides an efficient online search-engine for government documents (data.gov.uk). Meanwhile, the bi-annual Open Government Action Plans, which set goals and standards for open government in the United Kingdom, are negotiated in cooperation with the UK Open Government Network (OGN), a coalition of active citizens and civil society organizations.
Citations:
https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/
The UK government has a long history of publishing official statistics, and since 2007 this has been governed by the Statistics and Registration Service Act. The act created the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department, with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as an executive agency within the department (ONS previously reported into HMT). The act also created the Office for Statistics Regulation, which sets the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and oversees the accreditation of “National Statistics.” Beyond the official statistical system, the government publishes a wide array of data and is a world leader in open data. The UK government publishes an extensive array of transparency data (e.g., senior public servants’ salaries, workforce data, special adviser pay, and details of ministerial and senior officials’ meetings) – over 9,000 items on the government website (gov.uk) are categorized as “transparency data” and over 10,000 FOI requests have been published. The government also has a dedicated data portal (data.gov.uk), which makes publicly accessible over 47,000 datasets published by the UK government and other public authorities. Furthermore, the United Kingdom alongside Canada ranked first out of 30 governments in the latest Open Data Barometer (2016 – 2017) and in the OECD’s latest OURdata index (2017) the United Kingdom ranked 4th out of 31 countries.
Committee and working group meetings are streamed via a range of online platforms (e.g., YouTube and FacebookLive). Furthermore, the government provides an efficient online search-engine for government documents (data.gov.uk). Meanwhile, the bi-annual Open Government Action Plans, which set goals and standards for open government in the United Kingdom, are negotiated in cooperation with the UK Open Government Network (OGN), a coalition of active citizens and civil society organizations.
Citations:
https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/
Graph View
Do members of parliament have adequate personnel and structural resources to monitor government activity effectively?
10
9
9
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring all government activity effectively.
8
7
6
7
6
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring a government’s major activities.
5
4
3
4
3
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for selectively monitoring some government activities.
2
1
1
The resources provided to the members of parliament are not suited for any effective monitoring of the government.
Members of parliament have relatively few resources at their disposal in terms of personnel capable of monitoring government activity. Parliamentary parties also relatively poorly funded, relying substantially on donations, and therefore can provide little support. In addition, if a party is in government, a substantial proportion of its members of parliament will be (junior) members of the government and therefore not too keen to monitor themselves.
Parties in opposition are granted some public funds to hire additional researchers to fulfill their duties of controlling the government. But in terms of resources this is still not much compared to those the governing parties can call on through the ministerial bureaucracy. The Library of the House of Commons, however, provides non-partisan support and many members of parliament regularly avail themselves of its services.
The Dame Laura Cox Report 2018 exposed the widespread problem of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff. In response, the House of Commons Commission announced measures to prevent further bullying, which the House of Commons adopted. The Committee on Standards has been working on it, and the Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy as well as the Behaviour Code set up. A recent high-profile case involving a former minister showed the capacity of the independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Kathryn Stone, to call out transgressions, despite attracting hostility from some members of parliament.
Citations:
European Parliament / Directorate-General for Research 2000: Comparison of organizational and administrative arrangements in EU national parliaments; http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-ma/ep/00/budg110_en.pdf
Dame Laura Cox Report: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/conduct-in-parliament/dame-laura-cox-independent-inquiry-report.pdf
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmstandards/1726/1726.pdf
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8369/CBP-8369.pdf
Parties in opposition are granted some public funds to hire additional researchers to fulfill their duties of controlling the government. But in terms of resources this is still not much compared to those the governing parties can call on through the ministerial bureaucracy. The Library of the House of Commons, however, provides non-partisan support and many members of parliament regularly avail themselves of its services.
The Dame Laura Cox Report 2018 exposed the widespread problem of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff. In response, the House of Commons Commission announced measures to prevent further bullying, which the House of Commons adopted. The Committee on Standards has been working on it, and the Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy as well as the Behaviour Code set up. A recent high-profile case involving a former minister showed the capacity of the independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Kathryn Stone, to call out transgressions, despite attracting hostility from some members of parliament.
Citations:
European Parliament / Directorate-General for Research 2000: Comparison of organizational and administrative arrangements in EU national parliaments; http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-ma/ep/00/budg110_en.pdf
Dame Laura Cox Report: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/conduct-in-parliament/dame-laura-cox-independent-inquiry-report.pdf
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmstandards/1726/1726.pdf
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8369/CBP-8369.pdf
Are parliamentary committees able to ask for government documents?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may ask for most or all government documents; they are normally delivered in full and within an appropriate time frame.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to ask for government documents are slightly limited; some important documents are not delivered or are delivered incomplete or arrive too late to enable the committee to react appropriately.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to ask for government documents are considerably limited; most important documents are not delivered or delivered incomplete or arrive too late to enable the committee to react appropriately.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not request government documents.
The Osmotherly Rules, updated in October 2014, define the rights of select committees to obtain government documents. Although published in a Cabinet Office document, like many internal parliamentary rules, they are informal and cannot be legally challenged. However, documents are rarely held back and will thus be made available to committees. Only in very specific, pre-defined circumstances are documents withheld from select committees.
Although the government party normally has the majority on any committee, chairs of committees are shared among the parties, yet explicit party-political motives rarely come into play. Freedom of Information requests can additionally be used to obtain documents, but this does not include documents that affect national security or public interests. The media reinforce parliamentary scrutiny through their strong influence and the keen interest they take in committee findings that challenge the serving government.
Committees’ rights are thus not formally limited, but there are occasional disputes between committees and government over the provision of specific information, and committees will then have to order the publication of government documents. Recent high-profile examples include documents assessing the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal for the European Union and strategy papers describing the government’s approach to Brexit. In addition, the Johnson government delayed publication of a dossier from the intelligence and security committee about alleged Russian interference in the Brexit referendum campaign. In nearly all cases, Parliament eventually prevails, with the government likely to suffer reputational damage for resisting.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364600/Osmotherly_Rules_October_2014.pdf
Although the government party normally has the majority on any committee, chairs of committees are shared among the parties, yet explicit party-political motives rarely come into play. Freedom of Information requests can additionally be used to obtain documents, but this does not include documents that affect national security or public interests. The media reinforce parliamentary scrutiny through their strong influence and the keen interest they take in committee findings that challenge the serving government.
Committees’ rights are thus not formally limited, but there are occasional disputes between committees and government over the provision of specific information, and committees will then have to order the publication of government documents. Recent high-profile examples include documents assessing the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal for the European Union and strategy papers describing the government’s approach to Brexit. In addition, the Johnson government delayed publication of a dossier from the intelligence and security committee about alleged Russian interference in the Brexit referendum campaign. In nearly all cases, Parliament eventually prevails, with the government likely to suffer reputational damage for resisting.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364600/Osmotherly_Rules_October_2014.pdf
Are parliamentary committees able to summon ministers for hearings?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may summon ministers. Ministers regularly follow invitations and are obliged to answer questions.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon ministers are slightly limited; ministers occasionally refuse to follow invitations or to answer questions.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon ministers are considerably limited; ministers frequently refuse to follow invitations or to answer questions.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not summon ministers.
Ministers can be summoned to parliamentary committee hearings, but they cannot be forced to attend, because ministers have to be members of parliament or members of the House of Lords, and members of parliament cannot be forced to attend any meeting. However, the Osmotherly Rules recommend that ministers accept invitations to a hearing as an act of respectful courtesy, and thus ministers will usually accept an invitation to a hearing in a select committee. It would be headline news and damaging to the minister in question if they refused to appear before a committee on anything remotely controversial, although the answers given to committees can be bland. Sessions in the House of Commons can become quite confrontational, whereas those in the House of Lords are usually more restrained. Ministerial questions in plenary sessions of parliament complement the work of committees and can also be quite sharp in tone. The prime minister and key aides traditionally refuse to appear before select committees, but have appeared before the Liaison Committee, which is composed of the chairs of all the other committees.
Are parliamentary committees able to summon experts for committee meetings?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may summon experts.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon experts are slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon experts are considerably limited.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not summon experts.
Parliamentary committees may summon expert witnesses who will usually provide any evidence willingly. Should they decline to do so, committees then have the power to order a witness to attend, though this would be exceptional. Committees also often employ experts as specialist advisers.
Committees may also summon actors involved in an issue that the committee is investigating. Examples include the examination of press barons in the context of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking by journalists, of the entrepreneur Philip Green regarding the pension deficit of the BHS department store chain, and of Cambridge Analytica executives during the Information Commissioner’s investigation into the propagation of misinformation during the Brexit referendum campaign. Such hearings invariably attract extensive media coverage. In the last two years, the key advisers to the government on the pandemic (both those holding formal offices, such as the chief scientific officer and the chief medical officer, and independent experts) have appeared a number of times as witnesses.
Committees may also summon actors involved in an issue that the committee is investigating. Examples include the examination of press barons in the context of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking by journalists, of the entrepreneur Philip Green regarding the pension deficit of the BHS department store chain, and of Cambridge Analytica executives during the Information Commissioner’s investigation into the propagation of misinformation during the Brexit referendum campaign. Such hearings invariably attract extensive media coverage. In the last two years, the key advisers to the government on the pandemic (both those holding formal offices, such as the chief scientific officer and the chief medical officer, and independent experts) have appeared a number of times as witnesses.
Are the task areas and structures of parliamentary committees suited to monitor ministries effectively?
10
9
9
The match between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are well-suited to the effective monitoring of ministries.
8
7
6
7
6
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are largely suited to the monitoring ministries.
5
4
3
4
3
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are partially suited to the monitoring of ministries.
2
1
1
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are not at all suited to the monitoring of ministries.
Every government department is shadowed by a committee in the House of Commons, which looks at three facets of the department’s work: spending, policies and administration. The remit and number of committees adapts to reflect changes in the makeup of the government. There are also two select committees – the Public Accounts Committee and the (more recent development) Environmental Audit Committee – which undertake cross-departmental scrutiny. House of Lords select committees focus on broader topics and are less directly matched to departmental task areas, but cover important areas. One example is the Science and Technology Select Committee, which in turn has subcommittees that cover specific topics, such as the implications of autonomous mobility or the possible meaning of the withdrawal from the European Union for universities’ staff policies.
However, the capacity of committees to monitor effectively is limited due to a lack of resources and limited continuity in membership (e.g., the House of Lords rules oblige members to be rotated off a committee after four years, although from direct observation of the work of its committees this does not seem to weaken them). Also, the number of reports they issue massively exceeds the time available on the floor of the House to debate them and, despite increased efforts by the committees to publicize them, not all reports achieve much media coverage.
A new Brexit committee, with an above average membership and a careful balance of members to reflect conflicting views, was created after the 2016 referendum. However, this did not prevent the topic from splitting the House of Commons, with large parts of 2019 marked by complete political paralysis. The return of majority government after the 2019 general election solved that problem. During the pandemic, parliamentary committees provided timely scrutiny and criticism of government action.
However, the capacity of committees to monitor effectively is limited due to a lack of resources and limited continuity in membership (e.g., the House of Lords rules oblige members to be rotated off a committee after four years, although from direct observation of the work of its committees this does not seem to weaken them). Also, the number of reports they issue massively exceeds the time available on the floor of the House to debate them and, despite increased efforts by the committees to publicize them, not all reports achieve much media coverage.
A new Brexit committee, with an above average membership and a careful balance of members to reflect conflicting views, was created after the 2016 referendum. However, this did not prevent the topic from splitting the House of Commons, with large parts of 2019 marked by complete political paralysis. The return of majority government after the 2019 general election solved that problem. During the pandemic, parliamentary committees provided timely scrutiny and criticism of government action.
Graph View
To what extent do media in your country analyze the rationale and impact of public policies?
10
9
9
A clear majority of mass media brands focus on high-quality information content analyzing the rationale and impact of public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
About one-half of the mass media brands focus on high-quality information content analyzing the rationale and impact of public policies. The rest produces a mix of infotainment and quality information content.
5
4
3
4
3
A clear minority of mass media brands focuses on high-quality information content analyzing public policies. Several mass media brands produce superficial infotainment content only.
2
1
1
All mass media brands are dominated by superficial infotainment content.
The main TV and radio stations in the United Kingdom – especially those like the BBC that operate under a public charter – provide an extensive array of high-quality news services. Government decisions feature prominently in this programming, and information and analysis on government decisions are both extensive and held to a high standard. There is substantial competition for viewers, in particular between the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4. In addition to news programs, all provide in-depth analysis programs on politics and policy in a variety of formats. The Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 is well known for its highbrow political analysis and scrutiny, and often sets the tone for political debates. Meanwhile, several other political shows broadcast by leading TV channels provide political analysis and ministers taking part in them can expect robust scrutiny.
The style of interview on these programs is often explicitly not deferential and can even be quite confrontational, especially toward ministers. This is justified by the need to hold politicians and especially government ministers to account. Local radio and press also have a tangible influence within their localities, and an increasing number of people resort to online services, most notably BBC Online, as a source of information on government.
Scandals both in the private sector (News of the World) and the public sector (BBC) may have cost some credibility, but have so far had no recognizable influence on the functioning of the media system as a whole. Despite political pressure, The Guardian newspaper played a crucial role in the global surveillance disclosures of 2013 and was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for its efforts.
During the pandemic, most media outlets have both held the government to account and ensured that the public are kept well-informed. Many key announcements were carried live, notably the frequent briefings on COVID-19 related matters.
The style of interview on these programs is often explicitly not deferential and can even be quite confrontational, especially toward ministers. This is justified by the need to hold politicians and especially government ministers to account. Local radio and press also have a tangible influence within their localities, and an increasing number of people resort to online services, most notably BBC Online, as a source of information on government.
Scandals both in the private sector (News of the World) and the public sector (BBC) may have cost some credibility, but have so far had no recognizable influence on the functioning of the media system as a whole. Despite political pressure, The Guardian newspaper played a crucial role in the global surveillance disclosures of 2013 and was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for its efforts.
During the pandemic, most media outlets have both held the government to account and ensured that the public are kept well-informed. Many key announcements were carried live, notably the frequent briefings on COVID-19 related matters.
Graph View
How inclusive and open are the major parties in their internal decision-making processes?
10
9
9
The party allows all party members and supporters to participate in its decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are open.
8
7
6
7
6
The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, all party members have the opportunity to participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are rather open.
5
4
3
4
3
The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, a number of elected delegates participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are largely controlled by the party leadership.
2
1
1
A number of party leaders participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are fully controlled and drafted by the party leadership.
A distinction needs to be made for all major parties between the election of the leader, on which party members have a say, and the selection of other personnel or decisions over major issues, for which there are generally much more restrictive procedures. The selection of parliamentary and local council candidates usually involves local party members. Annual party conferences notionally have a major role in settling policy positions, but in practice it is party leaders that have the most significant role.
The Conservative Party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, a number of selected delegates participate in the most important personnel and issue decisions. Central party influence over candidate selection has varied in recent years. David Cameron introduced a “priority list” with at least 50% women and significant representation from ethnic minorities, from which all target seats and Conservative-held seats were supposed to be selected. In the run-up to the 2010 election and in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal, this requirement was relaxed. After the general election, selection rules reverted to the post-2005 procedure. The party leader is elected by a poll of all party members, who choose from a shortlist of two candidates nominated by Conservative Party members of parliament after a series of votes to eliminate other candidates. When the Conservative Party holds a majority in Parliament, the parliamentary Conservative Party is obliged to nominate the incumbent party leader as prime minister. Boris Johnson successfully used this mechanism to replace Theresa May in 2019.
The Labour Party also restricts decision-making to party members, although trade union influence remains strong. In most cases, a number of selected delegates participate in important personnel and issue decisions. Central party influence over local candidate selection has varied. Since 1988, there has had to be at least one woman on every shortlist. Since 2001, candidates require the approval of the central party’s head office prior to selection by their respective constituency Labour Party. Some political allies of the previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, favored a return to mandatory reselection, which would have increased the influence of the left-wing within the party and was therefore highly contested. The Labour Party’s selection process for party leader was changed prior to the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Previously the old electoral college voted for the party leader, consisting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, constituency Labour parties, and the trade unions and affiliated organizations. Each group had one-third of the total vote. Since the procedural change, the choice is now based on a “one member, one vote” system. In addition, “registered supporters” were able to vote by paying £3, an amount increased to £25 in 2017, to be entitled to vote as well. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the vote. Consequently, the election process can take several rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes after each round drops out, and their second preferences are redistributed to the remaining candidates, until the winning candidate has reached the required quorum. Keir Starmer emerged victorious in the first round of that process in the Labour leadership election in April 2020.
The Conservative Party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, a number of selected delegates participate in the most important personnel and issue decisions. Central party influence over candidate selection has varied in recent years. David Cameron introduced a “priority list” with at least 50% women and significant representation from ethnic minorities, from which all target seats and Conservative-held seats were supposed to be selected. In the run-up to the 2010 election and in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal, this requirement was relaxed. After the general election, selection rules reverted to the post-2005 procedure. The party leader is elected by a poll of all party members, who choose from a shortlist of two candidates nominated by Conservative Party members of parliament after a series of votes to eliminate other candidates. When the Conservative Party holds a majority in Parliament, the parliamentary Conservative Party is obliged to nominate the incumbent party leader as prime minister. Boris Johnson successfully used this mechanism to replace Theresa May in 2019.
The Labour Party also restricts decision-making to party members, although trade union influence remains strong. In most cases, a number of selected delegates participate in important personnel and issue decisions. Central party influence over local candidate selection has varied. Since 1988, there has had to be at least one woman on every shortlist. Since 2001, candidates require the approval of the central party’s head office prior to selection by their respective constituency Labour Party. Some political allies of the previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, favored a return to mandatory reselection, which would have increased the influence of the left-wing within the party and was therefore highly contested. The Labour Party’s selection process for party leader was changed prior to the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Previously the old electoral college voted for the party leader, consisting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, constituency Labour parties, and the trade unions and affiliated organizations. Each group had one-third of the total vote. Since the procedural change, the choice is now based on a “one member, one vote” system. In addition, “registered supporters” were able to vote by paying £3, an amount increased to £25 in 2017, to be entitled to vote as well. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the vote. Consequently, the election process can take several rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes after each round drops out, and their second preferences are redistributed to the remaining candidates, until the winning candidate has reached the required quorum. Keir Starmer emerged victorious in the first round of that process in the Labour leadership election in April 2020.
To what extent are economic interest associations (e.g., employers, industry, labor) capable of formulating relevant policies?
10
9
9
Most interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
2
1
1
Most interest associations are not capable of formulating relevant policies.
Major business associations propose practical policy solutions, which are rooted in a realistic assessment of the circumstances in which they will be carried out. Until recently, the polarization between the major parties had diminished, especially in the field of socioeconomic policy matters. The positions of the two main parties had appeared to diverge in the 2019 general election. However, in the course of the pandemic, the essential role of the state was broadly accepted by both business and labor interests. Especially with the Brexit decision, there is little incentive for business associations or trade unions to engage in wishful thinking if they want to be taken seriously in the national policy discourse. However, some economic interests do propose somewhat more provocative ideas.
The process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union led to some more assertive stances both from business (concerned especially about threats to its access to European markets and curbs on skilled immigrant workers) and trade unions (notably around protections deriving from EU rules). Some business groups were, however, more concerned about what they perceive as excessive regulatory burdens associated with EU membership. Although British business associations were divided over Westminster’s political ties to Brussels, access to the European Single Market was at the very heart of Britain’s economic interest, namely their world leading financial and insurance industries. Overall, the influence of economic interest groups is relatively low-key, though not insubstantial. Several international businesses, such as Airbus and certain Japanese investors, were vocal during the Brexit debates. Several more international businesses (e.g., Nissan and BMW) have made it clear since the referendum result that disruptions to their densely woven supply chains across the European Single Market will negatively affect their British production facilities. While somewhat masked by reduced trade volumes as a result of the pandemic, border frictions have certainly arisen, but with more pronounced effects on SMEs than larger companies.
Despite being capable of formulating policies, the eventual result of the EU-UK negotiations (namely a comparatively “hard” Brexit) indicates that the influence of associations on both sides of industry must be judged relatively minor in the face of clear political preferences. As the pandemic recedes, businesses are starting to express concerns about increased taxation and the – so far – limited changes in regulatory measures, while trade unions are worried about the rising cost of living.
The process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union led to some more assertive stances both from business (concerned especially about threats to its access to European markets and curbs on skilled immigrant workers) and trade unions (notably around protections deriving from EU rules). Some business groups were, however, more concerned about what they perceive as excessive regulatory burdens associated with EU membership. Although British business associations were divided over Westminster’s political ties to Brussels, access to the European Single Market was at the very heart of Britain’s economic interest, namely their world leading financial and insurance industries. Overall, the influence of economic interest groups is relatively low-key, though not insubstantial. Several international businesses, such as Airbus and certain Japanese investors, were vocal during the Brexit debates. Several more international businesses (e.g., Nissan and BMW) have made it clear since the referendum result that disruptions to their densely woven supply chains across the European Single Market will negatively affect their British production facilities. While somewhat masked by reduced trade volumes as a result of the pandemic, border frictions have certainly arisen, but with more pronounced effects on SMEs than larger companies.
Despite being capable of formulating policies, the eventual result of the EU-UK negotiations (namely a comparatively “hard” Brexit) indicates that the influence of associations on both sides of industry must be judged relatively minor in the face of clear political preferences. As the pandemic recedes, businesses are starting to express concerns about increased taxation and the – so far – limited changes in regulatory measures, while trade unions are worried about the rising cost of living.
To what extent are non-economic interest associations capable of formulating relevant policies?
10
9
9
Most interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
2
1
1
Most interest associations are not capable of formulating relevant policies.
The United Kingdom has a tradition of close scrutiny of policy proposals. The quality and realism of policy proposals determines the degree to which any interest group is taken seriously in the country’s national political discourse and there are many NGOs that have had a tangible impact on policy thinking. Green interest groups in particular have helped to shape the policies of successive governments. There are vocal campaigners for rural interests, while both sides of the migration debate have been nourished by interest groups.
There is an abundance of NGOs with often-narrow policy agendas that tend to be pushed forward without much consideration of the wider ramifications of the pursuit of their issue. By the same token, the diversity of such bodies allows a wide range of proposals to obtain a hearing. There is also a rich variety of think tanks able to feed ideas and specific proposals into policymaking, facilitated by the cultivation of links with decision-makers.
There is an abundance of NGOs with often-narrow policy agendas that tend to be pushed forward without much consideration of the wider ramifications of the pursuit of their issue. By the same token, the diversity of such bodies allows a wide range of proposals to obtain a hearing. There is also a rich variety of think tanks able to feed ideas and specific proposals into policymaking, facilitated by the cultivation of links with decision-makers.
Graph View
Does there exist an independent and effective audit office?
10
9
9
There exists an effective and independent audit office.
8
7
6
7
6
There exists an effective and independent audit office, but its role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
There exists an independent audit office, but its role is considerably limited.
2
1
1
There does not exist an independent and effective audit office.
The National Audit Office (NAO) is an independent office funded directly by parliament. Its head, the comptroller and auditor general, is an officer of the House of Commons. The NAO works on behalf of parliament and the taxpayer to scrutinize public spending and is accountable to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The media will usually pick up on any NAO findings, especially if they uncover questionable practices.
In 2020, the NAO undertook an investigation into government procurement during the coronavirus pandemic following a number of media reports. It found that the government did not always have “a clear audit trail to support key procurement decisions,” and that £10.5 billion worth of contracts had been awarded without any competition, £6.7 billion through framework agreements and only £0.2 billion through a competitive tender or bidding process. It recommended that the Cabinet Office issue new rules to avoid conflicts of interest for public officeholders in the future – or “chumocracy,” as the press labeled numerous cases of firms with links to Conservative members of parliament being awarded lucrative contracts for testing and supplying personal protective equipment during the pandemic.
Citations:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/chumocracy-first-in-line-as-ministers-splash-covid-cash-7wb5b8q0w
In 2020, the NAO undertook an investigation into government procurement during the coronavirus pandemic following a number of media reports. It found that the government did not always have “a clear audit trail to support key procurement decisions,” and that £10.5 billion worth of contracts had been awarded without any competition, £6.7 billion through framework agreements and only £0.2 billion through a competitive tender or bidding process. It recommended that the Cabinet Office issue new rules to avoid conflicts of interest for public officeholders in the future – or “chumocracy,” as the press labeled numerous cases of firms with links to Conservative members of parliament being awarded lucrative contracts for testing and supplying personal protective equipment during the pandemic.
Citations:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/chumocracy-first-in-line-as-ministers-splash-covid-cash-7wb5b8q0w
Does there exist an independent and effective ombuds office?
10
9
9
There exists an effective and independent ombuds office.
8
7
6
7
6
There exists an effective and independent ombuds office, but its advocacy role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
There exists an independent ombuds office, but its advocacy role is considerably limited.
2
1
1
There does not exist an effective and independent ombuds office.
The system of ombudsmen has been expanded over the last years. There are now four different ombudsmen that handle complaints about the civil service in each country within the United Kingdom, namely the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Northern Ireland Ombudsmen, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in England. Further, there is a Parliamentary Health and Service Ombudsman (PHSO) who mainly deals with complaints concerning the National Health Service in England, reporting to a parliamentary committee, and the Housing Ombudsman who looks at complaints about social housing. However, all ombudsmen’s offices are somewhat limited in staff, resources and access to information. For example, ombudsmen have no formal power to see cabinet papers.
Scotland took the innovative step in 2021 of establishing the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer, which is specifically tasked with processing complaints about the Scottish health service. As specified by the Trading Standards, Scotland also features a wide range of private sector entities that provide ombuds and similar consumer protection services.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-service-ombudsman
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7587/CBP-7587.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575922/draft_public_service_ombudsman_bill_print_version_december_2016.pdf
https://www.tradingstandards.uk/consumers/adr-approved-bodies
Scotland took the innovative step in 2021 of establishing the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer, which is specifically tasked with processing complaints about the Scottish health service. As specified by the Trading Standards, Scotland also features a wide range of private sector entities that provide ombuds and similar consumer protection services.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-service-ombudsman
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7587/CBP-7587.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575922/draft_public_service_ombudsman_bill_print_version_december_2016.pdf
https://www.tradingstandards.uk/consumers/adr-approved-bodies
Is there an independent authority in place that effectively holds government offices accountable for handling issues of data protection and privacy?
10
9
9
An independent and effective data protection authority exists.
8
7
6
7
6
An independent and effective data protection authority exists, but its role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
A data protection authority exists, but both its independence and effectiveness are strongly limited.
2
1
1
There is no effective and independent data protection office.
The United Kingdom was among the early adopters of personal data protection legislation. The Data Protection Act 1984 set standards for the use of digital data by the government, private businesses and individuals. Since 1998 (following the Data Protection Act 1998), the data protection regime has been shaped by EU law. The United Kingdom has adopted the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) into primary law (through the Data Protection Act 2018) meaning that the approach to data protection and information governance developed by the GDPR will be maintained now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union.
The central body authorized to enforce data protection legislation in the United Kingdom is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is a non-departmental public body which reports directly to parliament and is sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The office has a wide array of data protection responsibilities defined by the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the General Data Protection Regulations, among other legislation. Given the devolution of powers, a similar function also operates in Scotland. The ICO publishes its actions and fines. The ICO recently received a lot of media attention for its inquiry into the business practices of the data processing firm Cambridge Analytica. However, the ICO has no authority over any security agency in the United Kingdom, which are rumored to be proactively collecting a wide range of UK citizens’ personal data.
In October 2018, Elizabeth Denham, the UK Information Commissioner, was appointed the Chair of the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. In January 2022, she was succeeded by John Edwards, the former New Zealand privacy commissioner. An online safety bill is in preparation, which will, inter alia, seek to curb various abuses on social media, although the bill faces opposition due to the perceived threat it poses to freedom of speech.
Citations:
https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2022/01/new-uk-information-commissioner-begins-term/
The central body authorized to enforce data protection legislation in the United Kingdom is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is a non-departmental public body which reports directly to parliament and is sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The office has a wide array of data protection responsibilities defined by the Data Protection Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the General Data Protection Regulations, among other legislation. Given the devolution of powers, a similar function also operates in Scotland. The ICO publishes its actions and fines. The ICO recently received a lot of media attention for its inquiry into the business practices of the data processing firm Cambridge Analytica. However, the ICO has no authority over any security agency in the United Kingdom, which are rumored to be proactively collecting a wide range of UK citizens’ personal data.
In October 2018, Elizabeth Denham, the UK Information Commissioner, was appointed the Chair of the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. In January 2022, she was succeeded by John Edwards, the former New Zealand privacy commissioner. An online safety bill is in preparation, which will, inter alia, seek to curb various abuses on social media, although the bill faces opposition due to the perceived threat it poses to freedom of speech.
Citations:
https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2022/01/new-uk-information-commissioner-begins-term/