Scottish Government relationships with public bodies: progress review

3 Overview of relationships and terminology

3.1 This is a review of how SG manages its relationships with its Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), Non-Ministerial Offices (NMOs) and Executive Agencies (Agencies). Many of the comments on relationship management would also be relevant to public corporations, although no public corporation representatives were interviewed for this review. The distinctions between the different types of public body have a significant impact on the way that SG manages its relationships with them, but there are some common features and all of the relationships are important.

3.2 Terminology is important here but also difficult. The remit for this review goes beyond what is usually described as 'sponsorship', that is the management of SG's relationship with NDPBs, but there is no accepted terminology for the management of relationships with NMOs and agencies. The term 'Fraser Figure' for the senior official managing the relationship with an agency is still in common use, although this is not the Public Bodies Unit preferred term for the current arrangements. Several interviewees argued convincingly that it is best to avoid the use of the word 'sponsorship' for the relationship between SG and NMOs or agencies, as a clear signal of the different accountabilities of NMOs and agencies, and that would be ideal – but no obviously acceptable alternative has so far emerged. For simplicity, and with apologies to all those who this report uses the title 'Senior Sponsor' for a senior manager who is responsible for oversight of the relationship with a public body and the term 'sponsor' for any member of staff supporting a Portfolio Accountable Officer. It would be very helpful to establish terminology around the roles in SG that relate to the different types of public bodies for the future.

3.3 Some NDPBs also have reservations about the term 'sponsorship', arguing that it is not well-defined. It is certainly true that sponsorship is interpreted differently by individuals. SG officials often talk about working in partnership with public bodies, which is a helpful way of thinking about a working relationship with parity of esteem and focused on delivering outcomes. Another description used is that sponsors are 'advocates for the body within SG and for Ministers [or SG] with the body', which is also a helpful way of looking at what the 'sponsorship' activity is seeking to achieve. As one of the main drivers for the current review is criticism from audit reports and the Public Audit Committee, this report focuses on aspects of accountability of those involved in governance of public bodies, assurance arrangements in SG, and the overall approach to risk and escalation. It is important that everyone is clear about these aspects so that, on those occasions where governance or performance problems do emerge in public bodies, they are picked up and resolved as quickly as possible. They are necessary, but they are not in themselves sufficient. On a day-to-day basis, it remains essential that SG officials have strong personal working relationships with public bodies, and that there is regular, informal exchange of information and ideas on policy and operations.