The substantial change expected to result from the Big Society project, namely the devolution of power to communities and citizens will not occur overnight: if successful, as witnesses suggested, it will take a generation. The Government’s Big Society statements have, so far, failed to communicate this point effectively. There is public confusion with the policy agenda, eighteen months into this administration. Confusion also still exists among many service providers. Early examples, such as the Work Programme, have caused the charitable sector to express serious reservations about the implementation of the Government’s ambitions in practice.
To bring in charities and voluntary groups to deliver public services, the government must take steps to address the barriers they experience in the contracting and commissioning system, which means developing a plan to address roles, tasks, responsibilities and skills in Whitehall departments. We recommend:
a) A single Big Society Minister, who has a cross-cutting brief, to help other Ministers to drive through this agenda once they begin reporting progress against the aims of Open Public Services White Paper, from April 2012.
b) An impact assessment, applied to every Government policy, statutory instrument, and new Bill, which asks the simple question: “what substantively will this do to build social capital, people power, and social entrepreneurs?”
Unless this is done, the Big Society project will not succeed

Police forces with some of the worst records of targeting black people have decided to stop recording the ethnicity of the people their officers stop and ask to account for their movements, the Guardian has learned.
Five out of the 10 forces most likely to use stop-and-account powers disproportionately against black people – West Midlands, Avon and Somerset, Thames Valley, Sussex and Hertfordshire – have halted recording the race of people they have stopped. They have used a government change in the rules introduced in March, which was aimed at cutting bureaucracy.

i. Good people: government needs to recruit and cultivate the right people so that they are able to deploy their skills and abilities effectively to the work of government. This applies equally to government ministers, civil servants and public servants more generally.
ii. Good process: this means ensuring that appropriate structures, systems and procedures are in place for government to run smoothly—whether for the development of sound policies and legislation, successful policy implementation or for competent day-to-day administration of routine government business.
iii. Good accountability: adequate arrangements need to exist to ensure that people within government—both elected and appointed—are held to account for their decisions, actions and performance. One important prerequisite for proper accountability is the existence of defined roles and responsibilities so that it is clear who can be held responsible for what.
iv. Good performance: effective performance assessment within government helps to identify how well public organisations are meeting their objectives, as well as highlighting where improvements could be made, so that government is better able to work towards its desired outcomes.
v. Good standards: high ethical standards in public life are vital to ensuring basic public trust and confidence in governing institutions. Strong ethical regulation and ethical leadership in turn underpin the achievement of high standards.

It would be good to see this.

The speed with which the policy was introduced, with no significant consultation, no green paper and no detailed assessment of the pros and cons of a five year term over a four year term, suggests that short-term considerations were the drivers behind the Bill’s introduction. The Hansard Society argued that “political expediency appears to have taken priority over Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise the executive.” Democratic Audit stressed that “this change is yet another piecemeal alteration, implemented with insufficient consultation, to the UK constitution”.

The Government has not made out the case as to why the vast range and number of statutory bodies affected by this Bill should be abolished, merged or modified by force only of ministerial order, rather than by ordinary legislative amendment and debate in Parliament. As we have said, and as is axiomatic, the ordinary constitutional position in the United Kingdom is that primary legislation is amended or repealed only by Parliament. Further, it is a fundamental principle of the constitution that parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is allowed to be effective. While we acknowledge that exceptions are permitted – as in the case of fast-track legislation, for example – we have also sought to ensure that such exceptions are used only where the need for them is clearly set out and justified. As we have said, the use of Henry VIII powers, while accepted in certain, limited circumstances, remains a departure from constitutional principle. Departures from constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided.

And, if that isn’t enough:

The Public Bodies Bill [HL] strikes at the very heart of our constitutional system, being a type of ‘framework’ or ‘enabling’ legislation that drains the lifeblood of legislative amendment and debate across a very broad range of public arrangements. In particular, it hits directly at the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber.
.. The Public Bodies Bill [HL] is concerned with the design, powers and functions of a vast range of public bodies, the creation of many of which was the product of extensive parliamentary debate and deliberation. We fail to see why such parliamentary debate and deliberation should be denied to proposals now to abolish or to redesign such bodies.

I suppose that if you use the word bodies in a bill title you are just asking for responses invoking blood and guts.

Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business.

to radically increase the transparency and accountability of all public services.

One might ask how accountability is furthered by bringing functions back into a government which requires the support of people who renege on election pledges to remain in power.

The press release states that bodies which are not abolished are those which perform technical functions, require political impartiality, or need to act independently to establish facts. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (founded 1992) is safe on grounds of impartiality (?) while National Tenant Voice has to find its own way in the wilderness. There are other examples of undoing what has happened over the last dew years. For example, the Security Industry Authority established under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is disappearing as part of a “Phased transition to new regulatory regime”.

There are to be mergers. For example, the Competition Commission is to merge with the OFT although there seem to be some uncertainties about what happens to consumer protection after the merger (“Government will consult in the New Year on a merger of OFT’s competition functions with the Competition Commission and transfer of consumer and enforcement functions”). And the Gambling Commission, which warns people of the dangers of gambling is to be merged with the National Lottery Commission which doesn’t, except to warn people of scams which pretend to be connected to the (good) National Lottery (“Ensuring a fair Lottery for the nation £25 billion for good causes £37 billion in prizes).

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.