Review of Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs and Boards of Visitors of Penal Establishments
1. Large Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs (i.e. those which employ their own staff or which
incur significant expenditure) should undergo a full quinquennial review in the same way
as Executive NDPBs. However, for the majority of Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs, and for
individual Boards of Visitors of Penal Establishments, a full review will not be necessary
given that most are very small, incur little expenditure and do not employ their own
staff. For such bodies, a "light touch" approach should be adopted. The
following checklist of questions can be seen as the minimum requirement for these
"light touch" reviews.
Stage One
(i) How effectively does the NDPB contribute to the delivery of Government and
departmental objectives, as reflected in the appropriate Public Service Agreement? Is
there a continuing need for the functions undertaken by the NDPB? If not, can the NDPB be
abolished?
(ii) What links does or should the body have with other organisations? Is it
appropriate to carry out a joint review with other NDPBs?
(iii) Can the functions of the NDPB be brought "in-house"? Is there really a
need for an independent NDPB or can the functions of the NDPB be provided by civil
servants – or by the wider public service (e.g. the police, local authorities, the
NHS, etc.)?
(iv) Are there other bodies, particularly other NDPBs, carrying out similar or
complementary functions? If so, can the functions of the NDPB be transferred to one of
these other bodies?
(v) Is it necessary to have a standing body? For advisory NDPBs, can the advice the
NDPB provides be sought on an "ad hoc" basis through consultation with industry,
the voluntary sector or some other Non-Governmental Organisation rather than through a
standing NDPB?
(vi) Can the functions of the NDPB be delivered more effectively by the private or
voluntary sector? For advisory NDPBs, can the advice the body provides be sought directly
from industry, the voluntary sector or other Non-Governmental Organisations rather than
through an NDPB? Can the NDPB be reconstituted as a body led through one of these other
sectors rather than as a Government sponsored NDPB?
Stage Two
(vii) Do the terms of reference of the NDPB enable it to play its part in delivering
wider Government or departmental objectives?
(viii) Does the NDPB provide value for money? Is there any scope for increased
efficiency savings? Are Travel and Subsistence claims (and any other claims) properly
monitored? If board members are paid, how do the levels of remuneration compare to other
public appointments?
(ix) Are the arrangements for administrative support effective? Are administrative
staffing levels correct? Are the lines of accountability clear?
(x) Are the appointments procedures operating effectively? Are these in line with the
Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Guidance on Appointments to Public Bodies? Are
reasonable efforts made to encourage candidates from under-represented groups to apply for
appointments?
(xi) Is there the right mix of skills and experience amongst the NDPB’s board?
Have new board members received training? Are existing board members performing well? Are
there appropriate mechanisms in place to monitor members’ performance? Does the Code
of Practice for board members need updating? Is there an up-to-date and publicly available
register of members’ interests?
(xii) Is the NDPB operating in an open and transparent fashion? Can the NDPB’s
Annual Report be improved (e.g. should it contain more information or be circulated more
widely)? Should the NDPB hold open meetings – or, at least, an annual open meeting?
Can the NDPB release the minutes of its meetings?
(xiii) Does the NDPB operate in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to
Government Information? Do those NDPBs which have significant dealings with members of the
public have well publicised and easy-to-use complaints procedures?
(xiv) Is the NDPB making the best use of new technologies? Does the NDPB have its own
web site and, if it does, is it linked up to the central NDPB web site? Does the NDPB have an
email address? Is information on the NDPB (such as Annual Reports, etc.) made available
electronically?
2. There is no requirement for reviews of Advisory or Tribunal NDPBs to be announced.
However, it is good practice to do so, especially for the larger NDPBs and those which
have a particularly high profile. An arranged PQ will usually suffice.
3. The scope for consultation with "stakeholders" during reviews of Advisory
and Tribunal NDPBs is often limited. However, finding out what users think of the services
provided is an important part of the review process. Consequently, where an NDPB has a
clear set of users or customers, they should be given the opportunity to comment. Where
the NDPB operates in devolved areas, the devolved administrations should also be
consulted.
