On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)

The controversy around the Government's handling of flooding last winter showed that arm's-length Government is confused and opaque. Organisational forms and names are inconsistent. Most public bodies answer to Ministers but some are directly accountable to Parliament. There is no agreement on how many types of body exist. There are overlaps and blurring between categories. Accountability arrangements and reforms so far have been ad hoc. The Government has reviewed non-departmental public bodies, but it should review all forms of arm's-length Government, including executive agencies and non-ministerial departments. The Government should establish a clear taxonomy of public bodies: constitutional bodies, independent public interest bodies, departmental sponsored bodies, and executive agencies. All public bodies should sit in one of the categories, so that it is clear how each is to be governed and sponsored. This is essential in order to clarify who is accountable for what. This would promote understanding of what is expected of relationships and explain the rationale for locating functions in particular organisational forms. Up to date, plain English statements of statuses, roles and relationships are needed even if the underlying arrangements are complicated. This is far from the reality in many cases, particularly in the NHS. With a budget of £95.6 billion NHS England is now by far the largest public body in England and its accountability should not be in any doubt, but it is still evolving. There is insufficient understanding across Government about how arms-length Government should work.

This report into the implementation of the Charities Act 2006 finds the Charity Commission being asked to do too much, with too little. The charitable sector is at the heart of UK society, involving millions of people and £9.3 billion received in donations in 2011/2012. Around 25 new applications for charitable status are received by the Charity Commission every working day. Among the reports findings are: one of the keys tests set by the Charities Act 2006 for determining charitable status-the public benefit test-is critically flawed; the Government should revise the statutory objectives for the Charity Commission, to allow the Commission to focus its limited resources on regulating the sector; the proposal to increase the financial threshold for compulsory registration of a charity with the Charity Commission should be rejected; charities should publish their spending on campaigning and political activity. PASC criticises the way the Charity Commission has interpreted public benefit under the Act. The Committee also considered the impact of face-to-face fundraising, or "chugging"-on the street or on the doorstep-and warns that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to maintain the reputation of the charitable sector. The evidence was clear that the regulation of fundraising remains a concern for many members of the public. Two in three people have reported feeling uncomfortable as a result of the fundraising methods used by some charities.

In this report the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) calls for a "wiki" approach to policy-making, where public opinion, ideas and contributions are sought and welcome at any and all stages of the policy cycle. The Government should be able to demonstrate that it has adopted this approach alongside ministerial leadership and responsibility for policy and its outcomes. All policy making carries risks: a lack of appetite for participation, disappointment arising from unrealistic expectations and the dominance of vested interests. Government must frankly assess and address these risks in relation to open policy making. Digital technology has a significant role to play in opening up policy-making. Government could and should go further and embrace radical and innovative approaches, making use of existing platforms and technologies, such as Twitter. The success and impact of public engagement in policy-making must be effectively measured. Government must able to demonstrate value for money and improved outcomes with this new approach, particularly in a time of austerity. The Committee says proposals for both "open" and "contestable" policy-making demonstrate that Government recognises the value of public opinion in helping to identify problems and develop solutions. However, for open policy-making to work, it must be a genuine departure from more traditional forms of policy-making, where public engagement has usually only occurred after the Government has already determined a course of action. Care must be taken to ensure that open policy-making processes are not dominated by vested interests or 'the usual suspects' who are aware of policy 'opportunities'.

In this report the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) concludes that, despite the positive steps implemented by the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (the Act), there remain issues and concerns about the way government statistics are produced and disseminated which remain a genuine risk to public confidence in the statistical system and must be addressed. The Act was intended to ensure that statistics are produced to the highest professional standards and that effective governance structures are in place to protect transparency and accountability and the Committee found the Act had helped to improve the operation of the statistical system. However, the Act needs to have greater clarity and transparency in the way it operates and in the functioning of the UK Statistics Authority (the Statistics Authority). Those who regulate the quality of National Statistics are in the same organisation as those officials who produce data: the two groups should have a clear separation in practice, but this is hard to demonstrate when they work in the same building and share support services. It is also not appropriate that ministers should have lengthy prior access to certain statistics but other interested parties do not. The Statistics Authority does not seem to have sufficient control over the quality and integrity of the different data sets and statistical products produced by departments and their agencies. Planning and improving data access both within Government and for users outside Government should be given greater attention by the Statistics Authority, as well as by Government departments.

In this report the Public Administration Select Committee recommends that departmental press officers and government statistics staff should work together much more closely to ensure that press releases give an accurate and meaningful picture of the truth behind the figures. Government statistics press releases do not always give a true and fair picture of the story behind the statistics, sometimes going too far to create a newsworthy headline. And the Committee says the ways that statistics are presented can be a challenge even for expert users. The lay user is left confused and disengaged. The Office for National Statistics website makes figures hard to find and statistics are often presented in a confusing way, for example, in formats which are not easily understandable. Other recommendations include: the UK Statistics Authority should work proactively to bring together and clearly present key statistics, from various sources, around common themes or events, such as elections and referendums, as well as broader topics such as the labour market and economic trends; the ONS website must be improved; the Statistics Authority should find more creative ways of communicating statistics, for example, through interactive guides; publication of more raw data in machine-readable format for experts who want the full results, not just the edited highlights presented in releases for a mass audience; government statisticians produce thousands of pieces of data on demand, known as 'ad hoc statistics' and these should be published proactively, rather than simply in reaction to requests.

The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has concluded a year-long inquiry into the future of the Civil Service with only one recommendation: that Parliament should establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to sit as a Commission on the future of the Civil Service. It should be constituted within the next few months and report before the end of the Parliament with a comprehensive change programme for Whitehall with a timetable to be implemented over the lifetime of the next Parliament. The Report considers the increased tensions between ministers and officials which have become widely reported, and places the problems in Whitehall in a wider context of a Civil Service built on the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement established in 1853 and the Haldane principles of ministerial accountability set out in 1919. The government's Civil Service Reform Plan lacks strategic coherence and clear leadership from a united team of ministers and officials. The Northcote-Trevelyan Civil Service remains the most effective way of supporting the democratically elected Government and future administrations in the UK. Divided leadership and confused accountabilities in Whitehall have led to problems: a low level of engagement amongst civil servants in some departments and agencies, and a general lack of trust and openness; the Civil Service exhibits the key characteristics of a failing organisation with the leadership are in denial about the scale of the challenge they face. There is a persistent lack of key skills and capabilities across Whitehall and an unacceptably high level of churn of lead officials, which is incompatible with good government.