Premium
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LOOKS AT THE CIVIL SERVICE *
Author(s) -
Nethercote J. R.
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
australian journal of public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-8500
pISSN - 0313-6647
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1978.tb00425.x
Subject(s) - exchequer , house of commons , treasury , parliament , public administration , service (business) , select committee , commission , work (physics) , audit , civil service , government (linguistics) , chief audit executive , political science , commons , law , business , internal audit , accounting , public service , politics , joint audit , engineering , mechanical engineering , linguistics , philosophy , marketing
The 1977 report on the Civil Service by the Expenditure Committee of the U.K. House of Commons contains much to interest Australian readers. It recommends abolition of the Administration Trainee Scheme and an extension of the “Open Structure” to Assistant Secretary level; the establishment of a higher management course; the re‐activation of the Pay Research Unit; and the appointment of part‐time “outsiders” to the Civil Service Commission. Although luke‐warm to the Fulton doctrine of “hiving‐off”, the Committee favours the creation of more “accountable units” in departments. The centrepiece of the Report is the recommended return of key Civil Service Department functions—manpower control; management services; and internal responsibility for monitoring efficiency—to Treasury. The role of Parliament in improving efficiency is not neglected; it is proposed that the Exchequer and Audit Department conduct audits of management efficiency and effectiveness and that the use of select committees to review Executive activity be extended. The Committee was divided on the issue of whether officials serve ministers as well as they should, but the Report does contain proposals which are seen as “strengthening the minister's arm”. Overall the Report reflects the Committee's limited resources; analysis is often inconclusive, or at best, partial (particularly in areas such as the central organization of government and relations between the centre and departments), and the document seems to lack a clear strategy and sense of direction. However, the Committee's work does compare favourably with that of many other inquiries into the Civil Service.