Internal governance

Corporate governance in central government

Effective corporate governance is essential to any well run organisation. Good governance leads to good management, good performance, good stewardship of public money, good public engagement and, ultimately, good outcomes. Government departments are not the same as for-profit corporations, but they face many similar challenges and they need to be business-like. They can do this by tapping into the expertise of senior leaders with experience of managing complex organisations in the commercial private sector.

Departmental boards should be balanced, with roughly equal numbers of Ministers, senior civil servants, and non-executives from outside government.

Boards will give advice and support on the operational implications and effectiveness of policy proposals, focusing on getting policy translated into results using the following precepts:

  1. leadership—articulating a clear vision for the department and give clarity about how policy activities contribute to achieving this vision, including setting risk appetite and managing risk

  2. effectiveness—bringing a wide range of relevant experience to bear, including through offering rigorous challenge and scrutinising performance

  3. accountability—promoting transparency through clear and fair reporting

  4. sustainability—taking a long-term view about what the department is trying to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Public Law News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View Public Law by content type :

Popular documents